

tuny * ^ # ^ %^i&V r ^ ^ 




^ z ° WWW * i^^. °w 









THEOLOGICAL WORKS 

JUST PUBLISHED BY 

MESSRS T. AND T. CLARK 



In Demy 8vo, Price 10s. 6d., cloth, 

HERMENEUTICAL MANUAL; 

Or, Introduction to the Exegetical Study of the Scriptures of the 
New Testament. By Patrick Fairbairn, D.D., Principal and 
Professor of Divinity in the Free Church College, Glasgow ; Author 
of " Typology of Scripture viewed in connection with the whole 
Series of the Divine Dispensation," 2 vols. 8vo, Third Edition. 
price 18s. ; "Ezekiel and the Book of his Prophecy ; an Exposi- 
tion," 8vo, Second Edition, 10s. 6d. ; and "Prophecy viewed in its 
Distinctive Nature, its Special Function, and Proper Interpretation," 
8vo, price 10s. 6d. 

CONTENTS: 

PART FIRST. 

Discussion of Facts and Principles bearing on the Language and 
Interpretation of New Testament Scripture. 

PART SECOND. 

Dissertations on Particular Subjects connected with the Exegesis 
of New Testament Scripture. 

PART THIRD. 

The use made of Old Testament Scripture in the Writings of the 
New Testament. 



In Demy 8vo, Price 10s. 6d., cloth, 

A COMMENTARY ON THE BOOK OP GENESIS. 

By Martin Luther. 

Originally published at Witenberg, in the year of our Lord 1544, 
and now first translated into English, by Henry Cole, D.D., of 
Clare College, Cambridge ; Translator of " Select Works of Martin 
Luther," in Four Volumes, and of various other Works of Luther 
and Calvin. 



Crown 8vo, 4s. 6d., 

THOLUCK'S LIGHT PROM THE CROSS; 

SERMONS ON THE PASSION OF OUR LORD. 

"Dr Tholuck's sermons are not common-place spoken essays, but 
carefully considered expositions of the operations of Divine grace in 
the human heart, being instructive and comforting to those who are 
accustomed, in any strict way, to review their inner life, and look to 
their crucified Lord as the fount of all heavenly influences." — Literary 
Churchman. 



vA 



2 THEOLOGICAL WORKS JUST PUBLISHED BY MESSRS T. AND T. CLARK. 



In Demy 8vo, Price 10s. 6d., cloth, 

ZWINGLI; 

Or, The Eise of the Reformation in Switzerland. A Life of 
the Reformer, with some Notices of his Time and Contemporaries. 
By R. Ciiristoffel, Pastor of the Reformed Church, Wintersingen, 
Switzerland. Translated from the German by John Cochran, 

Esq. 

TRANSLATOR'S PREFACE. 
The object of the present work is to set Zwingli before us as he 
lived and as he wrought. The author has adopted the plan likely 
to be most successful in conveying an accurate impression of his 
subject ; he has made his work, as far as the materials at his com- 
mand would admit of, autobiographical. We have extracts from 
the Reformer's Correspondence — we are introduced to the circle of 
his friends — we are thrown into the arena of his mighty contests — 
Ave are conducted through the vineyard in which he laboured — we 
are admitted to view the interior of his domestic life. But, in the 
communication of this information, it is chiefly the hero himself 
who speaks, and tells us the story of his life. The portraiture of 
the Reformer thus drawn may be accepted as faithful ; it can hardly 
be otherwise : the plan taken by the author is certainly that best 
adapted for producing what may be called a photographic deli- 
neation of character. But it is not only the Reformer himself who 
is here sketched to the life — much light is thrown upon his coad- 
jutors in the work of Reformation, upon the rise and history of the 
great movement itself, and upon the manners and modes of think- 
ing of the times in which it took place. We believe the work will 
be generally acceptable to the English public, as a faithful record 
of the doings and sayings of one of the noblest characters of an 
eventful epoch. 

" We hold it in high estimation, shall turn to it as an authority 
on all points connected with the Reformation in Switzerland, and 
predict that posterity will consider it not the least interesting ac- 
count of one of the most eventful periods in the world's history."— 
Wesleyan Times, May 17, 1858. 



In Crown 8vo, Price 3s. 6d., cloth, 

EVANGELICAL MEDITATIONS. 

By the late Alexander Yinet, D.D., Professor of Theology in 
Lausanne, Switzerland. Translated from the French, by Professor 
Edward Masson. 

CONTENTS: 

I. The Waters of Shiloah and the Waters of the Great River. 
II. The Jews consulting Jeremiah. III. A First Gift, the Pledge 
of all Others. IV. Sanctification. V. Joy Unceasing. VI. 
Jesus instructing the Rich Young Man. VII. Human Equality. 
VIII. The Fasting which God regards not. IX. Jesus fulfilling 
the Law. X. The Centurion's Faith. XI. The Rash Judge. 
XII. Christ's Union with the Church the Image and Model of 
Marriage. XIII. Aquila and Priscilla. XIV. The Waters of 
Bethesda, 



THE 



SINLESSNESS OF JESUS: 



EVIDENCE FOE CHRISTIANITY. 



BY 



DR. C. ULLIANN. 



22868 
22868 



TRANSLATED FROM THE SIXTH GERMAN EDITION, 



EDINBURGH : 
T. & T. CLARK, 38, GEORGE STREET 

LONDON: HAMILTON, ADAMS, AND CO. 



MDCCCLVIIL 



22868- 



10 6 
iUN 16 1942 

Accessions Divs on 



MURRAY AND GIBB, PRINTERS, EDINBURGH. 



ADYEETISEMENT. 



The substance of the argument of this book first appeared in 
the form of an essay published in the Studien und Kritiken in 1828. 
For a period of nearly thirty years the work has been expanding 
under the Author's hand, until it has developed itself into the fol- 
lowing elaborate Treatise. 

It may, indeed, appear to some, that it has even exceeded its 
proper dimensions, and that the subject of the Sinlessness of Jesus 
might have been better, if more briefly, treated. And this might 
be true, if Dr. Ullmann's object were merely to discuss the doc- 
trine, and to determine its position in the system of Christian 
Truth. But his aim is nothing less than to present a full view 
of this truth, in order to substantiate its claims to be regarded as 
lying at the very foundation of the Christian Faith, and as form- 
ing a convincing proof of its Divine origin. And this could only 
be done by first establishing the fact that Christ actually was 
sinless, and then setting forth, with some fulness, the influences 
which must necessarily follow from that fact thus established. 

In his preface to the edition from which this translation is 
taken, Dr Ullmann says, that he was first led to publish the work 



iv 



ADVERTISEMENT. 



in a separate form by the hope that, by showing to others the 
process through which he had himself been brought to a living 
belief in Christianity, he might aid them in their efforts to attain 
a solid foundation for their faith. Feeling that "the great 
matter both in the present and in every age, is to lead souls to 
Christ, that in Him they may have life," he has sought to do this 
by exhibiting the picture of the Son of God in His moral purity 
and perfection. In his own country his work has been highly 
appreciated ; and it is hoped that the following translation of it 
will prove acceptable and useful to a large circle of English 
readers. 

It is proper to mention here, that a portion of this work (page 
141 to page 255) was not translated by myself, but by a Friend, 
who withholds his name. 

R. C. LUNDIN BROWN. 

London, May 1858. 



CONTENTS. 



INTRODUCTION. 

Page 

Sect. I. Importance of the Subject, . . . . .1 
Sect. II. History and Literature of the Subject, . . .15 

PART FIRST. 

THE IDEA OF SINLESSNESS, AND ITS REALIZATION IN THE 
PERSON OF JESUS. 



CHAPTER I. 

Of Sin, . .23 

CHAPTER II. 

Of Sinlessness, . . . . . . .41 

CHAPTER IH. 

The Sinlessness of Christ, . . . . . .52 

Section First. — Biblical Expressions of a General Character, . 52 

Section Second. — The Gospel-Portraiture of Jesus, . . 58 

Section Third. — Import of the Apostolical Utterances on the 

Moral Dignity and Purity of Jesus, . . . .83 

Section Fourth. — The Testimony of Jesus Himself, . . 93 



vi 



CONTENTS. 



PART SECOND. 

CHRISTIANITY ITSELF A PROOF OF THE SINLESSNESS OF JESUS, 
CHAPTEK L 

Page 

The New Moral Life in Christianity, . . . .113 

CHAPTEK II. 

The New Eeligious Life, . ' . . . .119 

CHAPTER III. 

Morality and Religion united in Holiness, . . . .123 
CHAPTER IY. 

These Effects caused not by an Idea but by a Fact, . .128 



PART THIRD. 

OBJECTIONS. 
CHAPTER I. 

Arguments against the Actual Sinlessness of Jesus, . . .145 

Section First. — The Development of the Person of Jesus, . 145 

Section Second. — The Development of the Messianic Plan, . 150 

Section Third. — The Temptation, . . . . 1 59 

Section Fourth. — Other Facts and Statements as Arguments 

against the Sinlessness of Jesus, . . . .181 

CHAPTER II. 

Arguments against the Possibility of Sinlessness, . . .192 

Section First. — Arguments drawn from Experience, . .192 

Section Second. — Arguments drawn from the Nature of the 

Moral Idea, . . . . . . , 206 



CONTENTS. 



Vll 



PART FOURTH. 

INFERENCES FROM THE FOREGOING FACTS AND STATEMENTS. 
CHAPTEK I. 

Page 

Inferences in respect of the Person of J esus, . . . 223 

Section Pirst. — Inferences in respect of the Human Nature of 

Jesus, . . . . . . . .223 

Section Second. — Inferences in respect of the Divine Nature of 

Jesus, . . . . . . . .232 

CHAPTER II. 

Inferences in respect of the Relation of Jesus to Humanity, . 244 

Section Pirst. — The Sinless J esus as the Personal Revelation 

of the Nature and Will of God,, . . . .246 

Section Second. — The Sinless Jesus as the Mediator between 

God and Sinful Man, . . . . . .255 



CHAPTER III. 

The Holy Jesus as the Pounder of the True Fellowship of Men, . 267 
Section Pourth. — The Sinless Jesus as the Pledge of Eternal 

Life, ........ 275 

Application and Conclusion, . . . . . 280 
SUPPLEMENT. 

THE DIFFERENT OPINIONS HELD REGARDING THE TEMPT ATI ON. 
CHAPTER I. 

Explanation of the Details, . . . . . .293 



Vlll CONTENTS. 

CHAPTER II. 

General View of the Temptation, ..... 303 

Section Fikst — Explanations which represent the whole Narra- 
tive as a Mere Product of Thought, .... 303 

Section Second.— Explanations which recognize a Historical 

Basis of the Narrative, . . . . .310 



INDEX. 

I. Passages of Scripture Illustrated or Explained, . . .317 
II. Subjects and Authors, ...... 318 



ERRATA. 

Page 16, line 15 from top, for " Appollinaris," read " Apollinaris." 

„ 19, „ 9 from bottom^r " docrtine," read " doctrine." 

„ 21, „ 10 „ for " right," read « rightly." 

„ 24, „ 9 „ for " scarce," read " scarcely." 

„ 129, „ 6 from top, for " sin," read " sinlessness." 

„ 170, ., 10 „ for " sensual," read " sensuous." 



PART FIRST. 



THE SINLESSNESS OF JESUS, 



THE 

SINLESSNESS OF JESUS. 



INTRODUCTION. 

SECTION" I. 

IMPORTANCE OF THE SUBJECT, 

Before passing on to our subject, it is necessary to make some 
remarks upon its importance, and to endeavour to render intel- 
ligible to the Reader what the object of this Treatise really is. 

When we take as our starting point the idea of sinlessness, we 
do not intend to confine the meaning of that word to the negative 
conception of a state of freedom from sin. Doubtless that con- 
ception is in itself of great importance, inasmuch as it marks 
off, more distinctly than any other, the line of demarcation be- 
tween moral purity, and any trace of moral pollution. But there 
is another idea which must be taken along with that of freedom 
from sin, as complementary to it, if we w T ould form an adequate 
idea of what sinlessness implies : the idea, I mean, of moral, and 
therefore necessarily also religious, perfection — the idea of a holy 
perfection of life. Sinlessness is, to our mind, that quality 
which enables man to occupy his proper position in the order of 
life appointed by God. As sinless, he stands in the relation 
towards God, as a God of holiness, which becomes him as a crea- 



2 



INTRODUCTION. 



ture endued with personality and formed in the image of God, 
Taken in this sense, the expression includes the idea of a humanity 
well-pleasing to God. It is the highest point of human develop- 
ment — the goal of human perfection. 

The thought of sinless perfection is of such a nature that, once 
brought clearly before a man, it cannot leave him in a state of 
indifference, but must of necessity penetrate, with a power all its 
own, into the inmost depths of his moral and religious being. 
Purity of heart, truth and holiness of the whole nature, are ideas 
simple enough indeed, and intelligible to all, but they are at the 
same time very powerful and very sublime ideas. When vividly 
realised, they call forth immediately in the soul a feeling at once 
of noble elevation and of deep humiliation. For, on the one hand, 
the soul feels the ennobling consciousness of its sure destiny, and 
the anticipation that that may one day be fully attained. It 
must feel that the man who possessed that stainless purity of 
heart and holy truth of life, in his whole nature, and at every mo- 
ment of his existence, would be also truly free and independent* 
He would need no crown to be a king, no sword to be a hero. 
He would be the true artist, who had realised the true idea of 
humanity such as the mind of Deity had conceived it ; — he, the 
man of true wisdom, who did not require to seek for truth, but 
who had already found her. He would possess in unbroken fel- 
lowship with God a perfect peace such as no disturbance from 
without could affect, and a full and blessed life which its Divine 
nature would render imperishable. On the other hand, with the 
thought of sinlessness, man must ever feel at once the sad convic- 
tion that he does not in fact possess this blessing with all the 
noble and satisfying qualities which it includes : on the contrary, 
he must be deeply conscious that the opposite is the case, that 
sin wields a mighty influence over him ; that it despoils him of 
true freedom ; that it takes from him his dominion over himself 
and the accidents of life ; that it excludes him from the possession 



IMPORTANCE OF THE SUBJECT. 



3 



of true wisdom and moral power ; and, lastly, that it banishes 
him from fellowship with God, and the peace and blessedness which 
that fellowship imparts. 

Thus the thought of sinlessness awakes in sinful man an inward 
contest. The thought is for him a longing, — a painful, unquench- 
able desire. He feels that it implies the highest of all attainable 
blessings ; but, at the same time, he must bitterly own that, 
entangled as he is in the web of sin, vainly would he strive to 
attain it. Nay, he is unable so much as to conceive, in all its 
purity and completeness, the thought of sinless perfection ; at 
most, some dim idea of it as an unsatisfied hope, flitters before 
his soul. The full significance and truth of the thought will be 
apprehended by him only when it is presented as a personal 
reality. He must see it as something objective to himself, and as 
thus perfectly realised in all the relations of life. But should 
this realization of the idea meet him in actual fact as a personal 
being of perfect and holy life, then he will be compelled to yield 
himself to the conviction, that such an appearance is a thing un- 
rivalled in the religious and moral life of the world. He will feel 
that it marks the highest position that human personality can 
occupy in relation to God, and will recognize in it, accordingly, a 
leading characteristic of the true and perfect religion. 

Sinlessness, in this view of it, as something which has been 
realised in a personal form, has the deepest significance for the 
circle of religious life in the midst of w r hich it makes its appear- 
ance. It is of great importance in an apologetical aspect ; it not 
only lies at the foundation, but has also a place among the 
defences of the religion of Christ. To explain this a little more 
fully: 

The aim of Apologetics is, to some extent, to establish reli- 
gious ideas considered in themselves ; but still more, (as all 
sound and vital piety has an individual and historical character,) 
to establish a concrete and thoroughly real religion. Moreover, 



4 



INTRODUCTION. 



its object is to show, not merely that the religion it seeks to 
establish possesses certain excellences, or contains some admirable 
positions, but that, both in its deepest source and in its undivided 
entirety, it is the true religion, and thus is a law to all mankind. 
Christian Apologetics, in particular, seeks to perform this service 
to Christianity. But religion, in its real nature, as no deep 
thinker of the present day can deny, rests not only objectively on 
a number of doctrines, laws, and customs, and subjectively on a 
belief in those doctrines, and on practising those laws and cus- 
toms : it rests also, objectively, on a real communication of 
blessings on the part of the living God, regarded as an actual 
fact, and subjectively on the appropriation on the part of man of 
this Divine communication, in its deepest nature, and in the ful- 
ness of personal life. Religion is the relation of Person to Per- 
son : it is, on the one hand, the redeeming and sanctifying 
energy of the personal God working upon sinful man with a view 
to his being brought back into His blessed fellowship ; on the 
other, it is man freely submitting himself to the influence of the 
Divine power, and voluntarily accepting His salvation ; and 
both in such a way, that the Divine renovating power penetrates 
into the inmost recesses of the soul, and embraces the whole com- 
pass of life. In order to establish a relation such as this, it is 
above all things necessary that there should exist a personal 
being in whom the full fellowship between God and men is re- 
stored as at the first. He must be capable of forming a medium 
through which the salvation of God reaches the human race, and 
possess the power to generate in the soul of man a new life of 
obedience to God. But a personality able to accomplish this 
must be perfectly free from all sin — perfectly pure and holy both 
in heart and life. In this view, therefore, the sinlessness (that is, 
holiness and perfection of life) of him who is to found the reli- 
gion, is an indispensable condition, and we should be justified in 
believing that any religion presented to us was the true one, only 



IMPORTANCE OF THE SUBJECT. 



5 



where we had indisputable evidence that that condition had been 
fulfilled in its founder. But then, on the other hand, we can 
with equal truth assert, that where this has been the case, where, 
we have full reason to recognize in the founder of any given reli- 
gion an individual of holy and absolutely perfect life, we shall 
have io this very fact the highest evidence of the actual truth 
and perfection of that religion itself. For a person of this cha- 
racter must possess the highest religious truth ; we will, there- 
fore, expect to find, in connection with him, everything else that 
is necessary to a perfect religion. 

Now, there exists a tradition that a life of sinless perfection 
has actually been lived. In the midst of human history, which 
presents to us doubtless many bright spots, many great deeds, 
and many noble natures, but, at the same time, an uninterrupted 
chain of imperfect and sinful beings — in the midst of this history, 
whose purest light is never wholly undimmed, there is said to 
have appeared One who was altogether holy and undefiled, whose 
character was absolute truth, righteousness, and love, as He fully 
manifested by word and deed, in sufferings and in death. 

An appearance of this nature could not, in any case, have 
failed to produce the strongest impression upon men, and to 
leave behind it effects at once the most powerful and the most 
permanent. The realization of the idea of highest perfection 
could not pass away as an isolated phenomenon, but must, on 
the contrary, by virtue of that moral fellowship which binds men 
together in one family, have produced the most marked results 
on the ordering of human life in general. And this impression 
has in truth been made ; the effects and consequences of this 
appearance are presented to us in the history of the world ; they 
reach through a long series of centuries down to our own time, 
nay, to our very selves. It cannot be denied that the world, 
as it is now, is entirely different from what it was previous to the 
manifestation of that Life. It is, so to speak, a new creation. 



6 



INTRODUCTION, 



which is borne witness to not only by the condition of mankind 
generally which it has called into being, but also by the ex- 
perience of every individual of the race who has partaken of it. 
And this new creation must, on the other hand, from every 
part of it where the pulse of life beats strong, refer back to 
that one original source, to that incomparably pure and holy 
Being from whom its existence comes. 

It is unnecessary to say that Jesus of Nazareth is the person of 
whom we speak. Moreover, there is handed down to us con- 
cerning Him, of whose character so much of a peculiar excel- 
lence is recorded, other information of a different nature. In 
Him, the Son of Man, we are told, there appeared also the 
Eternal Word, the only-begotten Son of God. He is said to have 
brought about the reconciliation of God with sinful man by His 
life and doctrine, sufferings and death, and to have performed 
miracles by the power of God. Further, He is recorded to have 
arisen in life from the bands of death, to have been elevated to 
the right hand of the Divine Majesty, that He might rule by 
His Spirit, and bless with His gifts, the Church of the faithful. 

These assertions, which have ever constituted the basis of the 
Christian faith, have, along with the positions on which they 
rest, and the conclusions they involve, been opposed in almost 
every age. They were first contested from without the Christian 
community, then by members of that community itself: at no 
time have they been made the object of a more systematic and 
thorough-going opposition than in our own day. Indeed, so far 
has this opposition been carried, that people have left nothing 
more of the person of Jesus remaining than its bare existence, 
— which, indeed, they could not call in question, — and the trivial 
admission of a certain mental greatness, of which, however, it is 
a matter of uncertainty to what extent He really possessed it, 
and how far He owes it to the creative imaginings of His 
followers. Nay, even this must be deducted from what is left 



IMPORTANCE OF THE SUBJECT. 



7 



us ; and Jesus Christ is made out to be a mere product of the 
reflection of those who have narrated His life, — in a word, an 
artistically constructed fiction. 

When doubt began by degrees to assume a definite form, 
and objections were more ably set forth and systematically put 
together, those who believed in Christianity — thinking they found 
in it the portion and the salvation of man — were naturally led to 
cast about for weapons by which they might resist those attacks. 
Now, it is to be observed, that in the matter of the defence of 
Christianity as the truth and saving power of God, every age 
has its own peculiar necessities. True, Christianity, so far as 
its essential nature is concerned, remains ever the same ; but it 
presents many different sides from which to view it, and has 
many different points at which men may enter into the circle of 
its thought and life. It is here that we must take into account 
the special connecting links between it and the peculiar con- 
stitution of different ages, times, and individuals, — a reference 
which is not only permitted, but commanded. If, for instance, 
the doubts entertained relate to a life which lies beneath the 
surface, the defence must also come from a deeper and less 
assailable principle of life : if arguments hitherto used with effect 
are found less efficacious now, because no longer on a level with 
the spiritual and moral condition of the age, others must be 
sought which shall meet present exigencies. And it is apparent 
that we are now thrown back upon deeper, more essential, and 
surer principles, than those which satisfied people in an earlier 
age: and these we have, also, to use in another way tha 
they did. 

We will instance this in one particular. When the apostles 
bring forward, as a proof of the Divine mission of Christ, the 
signs and wonders that accompanied His manifestation, as well 
as the fulfilment in His person of the predictions of the prophets 
and the types of the Old Testament, they are certainly entitled 



8 



INTRODUCTION. 



to do so : — as indeed only he can deny, who calls in question 
everything miraculous in the life of Jesus, and all Divine Provi- 
dence in the connection between the economy of the Old Testa- 
ment and the New. And yet, with all due recognition of the 
right of the apostles to use this argument, there is one point which 
demands our serious attention, Miracles, in and for themselves, 
prove nothing : the apostles themselves felt this ; they knew of 
miracles performed by the powers of evil. Only when viewed as 
inseparably connected with a personality like that which, as they 
were most deeply persuaded, they saw in Christ, could those 
miracles prove anything to them ; and no mere display of power, 
striking the senses with wonder and awe, could have forced upon 
them the conviction that Jesus was the promised Messiah, the 
Anointed, the Holy One of God, if He had not given full proof 
of this by the perfect moral purity and elevation of character 
which He presented to their view, — if He had not unfolded before 
their eyes, in a manner quite overpowering, a life truly Divine. 
Again, it was only on the supposition that this was really the 
case, that they could apply to Him with perfect confidence 
the types and prophecies of the Old Testament. The founda- 
tion of their belief in the miraculous works of Jesus, and in the 
fulfilment in Him of the types and prophecies of the Old dispen- 
sation, was their faith in His glorious and holy personality. 
But, at the same time, they found themselves in another position 
with reference to their contemporaries. They were the eye-wit- 
nesses of what had occurred, and were themselves sureties of its 
truth. When they announced the miraculous works of Christ, 
they found their hearers ready to bestow credit on what they 
said, to an extent which could never be looked for in our days. 
In reference to the prophecies, too, they would find, at least 
among their Jewish hearers, the germs of faith already existing. 
This was not the position in which the subsequent defenders of 
Christianity were placed. If ? then, these made use of the evidence 



IMPORTANCE OF THE SUBJECT. 



9 



from miracles and from prophecy — of which, indeed, apologists 
avail themselves to this very day, sometimes to the exclusion of 
all other evidence — this must have arisen from one of two causes, 
or rather from a combination of both. On the one hand, they 
cannot have thought the difference in the position of the eye- 
witnesses and that of those coming after them so very important, 
nor have appreciated the dissimilarity between the method of 
viewing the matter taken by ancient and that of modern times. 
Or, again, they did not sufficiently weigh the fact, that it is not 
so much the performing of miracles that establishes the Divine 
mission of a person, whatever that person in himself may be, but 
rather it is the miracle itself that receives its endorsement by its 
connection with a personality of a particular character. In a 
word, it is not the miracle that accredits the person, but the 
person who sanctifies the miracle. And, again, as regards the 
prophecy likewise, everything hangs upon the nature of the 
person in whom it is fulfilled. 

The position that we occupy, in an age in which doubt and 
disbelief so greatly prevail, is such, that in the vindication of 
Christianity we must go far beneath the surface, and begin from 
the deepest and most important foundation of all, from what 
appears self-evident and in need of no external proof. This 
deepest foundation, viewed from its objective side, is nothing else 
but the person of the founder of Christianity, the real central- 
point of the Christian Church. Viewed from its subjective side, 
again, it is those workings of spiritual, creative power which 
emanate from that person, and of which we ourselves, so soon as 
we open our heart to them, do become directly conscious. On 
this foundation Christianity itself is built ; and in other times, 
when the Christian mind has been led more to turn its attention 
inwards, men have come back to this. And there can be no 
doubt that it is to the influence of this fundamental truth that 
the men of the present day are most accessible ; for there are 



10 



INTRODUCTION. 



many who turn away when they hear of the positive, and the 
miraculous, and the doctrinal parts of Christianity, who would 
not shut themselves against a convincing representation of the 
moral dignity and power of the person of Christ, and of the 
world-transforming influences that have gone forth from Him. 
Now, if we succeed in our attempt to bring out and forcibly 
illustrate what is peculiar, creative, and divine in Christ, we 
shall thus, better than in any other way, gain a most impor- 
tant position, from which we may safely proceed to the other 
fundamental parts of Christianity ; at least, in so far as we can 
show these to stand in immediate connection with that central- 
point, and to follow as necessary consequences from it. 

This mode of proof has this peculiar advantage, that, in refer- 
ring back immediately to the person of Christ, it bases belief, 
not on something more or less extraneous to its proper object, 
but entirely on that object itself, namely, Christ. It has, more- 
over, a very peculiar import, in that it appeals to the moral con- 
sciousness of men. The truly convincing evidences for Christi- 
anity are those which are at once theoretical and practical ; for 
the object is not only by the use of argument to convince the 
understanding, but at the same time to touch the conscience, to 
move the will, and to give a decided impulse to the spirit, and a 
new direction to the whole life. Christianity itself is by no 
means mere intellectual truth, mere correct ideas of religion : it 
is much more truth of life ; it is a condition of life, a carrying 
out of a new order of life. Hence it is, that entrance into the 
domain of Christianity is not to be gained by a mere process of 
thought, but can only be attained by undergoing a new process 
of life, a radical change of the moral nature. There is then an 
up-breaking, an overturning; old things pass away, and all 
things become new : but, as one has well said, the breaking is 
not of the head, but of the heart. Only one thing can really lead 
a man into Christianity, and that is a deeply-felt need of salva- 



IMPORTANCE OF THE SUBJECT. 



11 



tion ; and that part of a man whence especially this need of 
salvation springs, is his moral nature, and more particularly, the 
conscience. Hence the subject which we have here to consider 
speaks directly to the conscience. The image of Jesus, in His 
holy purity, does not merely delight our contemplation, and satisfy 
our intellect, — more than this, it affects, as nothing else can, our 
conscience. The conscience of Jesus rises up before the soul as 
a thing that has really been, in all its clear and stainless purity. 
True, it can never be reproduced as a living reality in us, without 
shivering and shattering all our virtuous conceits, without casting 
us, as sinful men, prostrate in the dust before the Holy One. 
But while it thus humbles us, it exalts us too, and draws us with 
an inwardly overpowering might into the communion of holy and 
compassionate Divine love, shining forth on us from Him as from 
the brightest mirror. And thus this image, when fully realized 
by us, does of necessity make upon us a most deep and abiding 
impression : some measure of the power which dwelleth in Him 
passes into us ; Christ begins to attain a form within us. And 
thus we are brought within the sphere of the creating influence 
of the Spirit of Christ ; we enter the region of Christian faith 
and Christian life. And as our will seeks, in conformity with 
the word and example of Christ, to submit itself to the will of 
God, we come experimentally to know that His doctrine is not 
His, but God's. It is thus that this mode of proof, while it 
vindicates belief, is at the same time fitted to call forth and 
increase the same — in so far, at least, as this can be effected by 
such means, — because by it that sacred personality, which is 
itself the life- pro during object of faith, is conducted into the 
inner temple of the soul. 

If, in the following treatise, we are to endeavour to base our 
belief in Christ (by which is meant our conviction that He is the 
realization of the Divine idea of salvation) upon His moral and 



12 



INTRODUCTION. 



religious personality, this can only be done in so far as we are 
able to make good the position, that His life was in every respect 
faultless — entirely corresponding to the Divine idea of humanity ; 
that His desires and feelings were alike free from every element 
of sin ; and also, what is in close connection therewith, that His 
thoughts of Divine and moral things were entirely free from all 
error. For these points once established, it is clear how much 
must of necessity follow from them; and, on the other hand, 
should it be found impossible to prove them, it is apparent that 
the negative consequences of such a failure would be most 
serious. 

Let us accept, for a moment, this latter alternative. Let us 
admit, not only that Jesus was capable of error and sin, but that 
He was to some extent under the dominion of either ; and what 
is the result ? Manifestly the position which He occupies wo aid 
then be different in every respect from that which Christian faith 
has from the very first ascribed to Him, and our relation to Him 
would be completely changed. He would then, of necessity, 
cease to be — what He was to the apostles, and is to every 
believer — the perfect image of God, the stainless type of human 
perfection, the eternal King in the kingdom of Truth. He would 
no longer be the Man in whom the creation of the race is brought 
to perfection — a second nobler Adam, the Ancestor of a new 
generation. He would then be nothing more than an individual 
link in the infinite chain of development. He would no longer 
stand out alone in the history of the world ; but, from the point of 
elevation in that history upon which to the eye of Christian belief 
He now stands, He must descend : descend, either to mingle with 
the crowd of well-meaning enthusiasts, or, in the other less logical 
view, to take His place among the wise and noble of our race, as 
one perhaps pre-eminent even among them, but still one of their 
kind, a man of like passions with them, who, as well as they, 
must pay His tribute to human depravity and human weakness. 



IMPORTANCE OF THE SUBJECT. 



13 



One, indeed, He must in ail circumstances be acknowledged to 
have been, who has given a mighty impulse towards the forming 
of a new world of ideas, who has even discovered new truths ; 
but, on this supposition, He is no longer The Truth. He is a 
good man, perhaps one entitled to the highest admiration, but 
still He is not the Holy One of God. Above all, He would then 
be no longer the Redeemer. For, if He was Himself subject to 
the power of sin, He could not be the Author of the pardon of the 
sins of men, nor their Deliverer from the bondage of corruption. 
And if, along with sin, error dwelt in Him, He could not be the 
life-giving Fountain of purest, divinest Truth. If all this be 
true, then moral and religious development may, in its onward 
progress, be expected to advance beyond Him ; having done His 
part in helping forward the species, and filled His place in the 
history of the world, He may be dispensed with, and from Him 
the world may pass on ; the faith which has sprung from the 
peculiar, ideal, Divine character of this man is worm-eaten at 
the root ; and the Church which has grown up out of that faith, 
must either be dissolved and broken up, or must become wholly 
different from what it has been from the beginning. 

But it is, on the other hand, equally apparent what conse- 
quences must follow from the sinless holiness of Jesus, when that 
has once been established as an incontrovertible fact. The posi- 
tion which Christian belief has ever taken up, and occupies now 
towards Him, follows from the proved sinlessness of the Saviour 
as a natural consequence. For, if Jesus is holy, free from 
sin, and true to the exclusion of all error, and if holiness and 
truth are combined in His person in primeval perfection, He 
thus stands upon a platform elevated high above the common fate 
of mortals, all of whom, without exception, are subject to error 
and to sin. In such a case, we are both entitled and enjoined 
to reverence in Him — viewed in His whole manifestation upon 
earth, in all that He did and all that He taught — the exponent of 



14 



INTRODUCTION. 



the will of God concerning man. Then we must recognize in the 
person of Jesus the terminus and goal of human perfection, beyond 
which there can be no advance, the full realization of the Divine 
idea ; and we must, at the same time, see in Him the beginning 
of a new spiritual creation in humanity. We have, then, every 
warrant to look to Him, the Sinless One, as the Author of our 
deliverance from sin ; to Him, the Holy One, as the living source 
of holiness ; to Him, one with the Father, as the Restorer of true 
union with God. Then will we form for ourselves this resolution, 
than which no nobler can be conceived, to take unto ourselves 
and make our own the truth presented to us in His life, and the 
heavenly blessings which that life conveys ; and seek to bring 
ourselves into so close a union with that personality, in whom the 
whole life of God became real, that that life will be henceforth 
the strongest and deepest power in our own human life. Then 
that personality has not merely a historical and transient, but an 
absolute and eternal, significancy. Then the old Christian faith, 
which rests upon the Holy One of God, is still secure even in its 
deepest foundations, and the Church, which has risen from that 
faith, is still strong enough to stand against the gates of hell. 

It will thus be seen that the question concerning the sinless 
holiness of Jesus is one of the most radical importance. Upon it 
depends nothing less than the existence or non-existence of the 
Christian religion. If there be no sure foundation on which the 
doctrine of the sinlessness of Jesus may rest, then Christianity 
itself has no sure foundation. If, on the other hand, this doctrine 
be true, the whole Christian faith may rest upon it. 



HISTORY AND LITERATURE OF THE SUBJECT. 15 



SECTION II 

HISTORY AND LITERATURE OF THE SUBJECT. 

The fundamental importance of the doctrine of the Sinlessness 
of Christ has at no time been entirely ignored in the Christian 
world. Theology has always had its attention turned towards 
this most vital point ; only, it has regarded it from different points 
of view at different periods. The importance of the fact has 
always been recognized in an equal degree ; but its connection 
with the other parts of Christianity has been variously determined, 
and the doctrine has been treated by theologians with different 
purposes. This is not the place to give a full account of the 
discussion of the doctrine of the Sinlessness of Jesus in the Chris- 
tian world ; but we must dwell on certain leading features, in 
order to mark out the peculiar province of this Treatise, and the 
object which it has in view. 

The conviction of the sinless holiness of Jesus was, for His 
disciples and apostles, as has already been stated, and as will after- 
wards be more fully shown, an inalienable part, and indispensable 
ground of their faith in Him, as the Messiah sent by God, the 
Son of God and Man, and Redeemer of Mankind. With them 
it was not a subject of reflection. All they did was to reproduce, 
in all simplicity, the impression made upon them by the appear- 
ance of Jesus. In a very special way the sinlessness of Jesus 
was connected in their mind with His atoning and sacrificial 
work. 

In the further development of the doctrine of Christ within the 
Church, this apostolic view of the subject continued to prevail. 
A more explicit reference to the doctrine of the sinlessness of 
Jesus, especially in its historical bearings, was nowhere attempted ; 



16 



INTRODUCTION. 



and for this reason, on the one hand, because it was regarded as 
an indisputable fact; and again, becair^ it was looked upon as 
an article of belief essentially interwoven with the whole organ- 
ism of the Christian religion. But whenever the doctrine of the 
person of Christ began to be more fully elaborated, this article 
of belief came very prominently forward. 1 We find this already 
in the writings of Irenseus and Tertullian, of Clement and Ori- 
gen. 2 But they give the subject a different form and import- 
ance. Generally the difference is this : either the sinlessness of 
Christ is inferred from His Divinity, as Tertullian does ; or, as by 
Origen, it is regarded as a peculiar property of the human soul 
of Jesus, which was characterized by a free but constant love for 
what was Divine and good, by means of which property that soul 
made itself worthy of perfect union with the Divine, eternal Logos. 

In the Christology of Appollinaris this doctrine has a peculiar 
importance attached to it. He proceeded from the belief that 
along with human nature there is always mutability and change 
in the moral life, gradual development, conflict, and therefore 
sin : no man can be perfect, according to him, without sin. But 
as, according to his own belief, the Redeemer of men must Him- 
self be free from all sin, and elevated above all conflict with evil, 
he w r as thus led to form the opinion, that in Christ the Divine and 
eternal Logos had taken the place of the vacillating and neces- 
sarily sinful human soul. This Logos, in itself supreme above and 
impervious to evil, is thus supposed to have imparted to every 

1 The first writer who uses the word avct^ot^To? with reference to Christ is 
Hippolytus (Galandii Biblioth. ii. 466). Then we find the terra repeatedly era- 
ployed by Clement of Alexandria; still he uses also the word knxiSrvfwros 
(Stromat. vii. 12): a word which, more than the other, has reference to the 
inward state. 

2 It would lead us too much into detail were we to give all the passages of 
the Fathers referred to. The reader may consult Duncker's Christologie des 
IrenaBus, S. 219 ff. ; Hagenbach Dogmen-geschiehte, B. i. § 67. See also Suicer 
Thesaurus Ecclesiasticus, T. i. 287-289. 



HISTORY AND LITERATURE OF THE SUBJECT. 17 

experience and feeling of Christ an irresistible bent towards the 
holy and the Divine, and to have raised Him above all conflict 
with sin. Now, even if, by the adoption of this view, we secure 
for the doctrine of the sinlessness of Christ a surer basis, we 
should nevertheless, at the same time, grievously injure another 
most vital doctrine, namely, that of the perfect humanity of 
Christ, and the truth of His typical character as a real man ; 
because both these truths rest upon the assumption of a rational 
human soul in Christ. Hence the importance of holding fast the 
doctrine of Christ's sinlessness along with that of His true 
human nature. Both were fully recognised by Athanasius, 
who alluded to the fact that sin, although found by expe- 
rience to be really present in all mankind, yet belongs not to 
human nature in itself considered, whose original state was, on 
the contrary, a state of sinlessness. So Christ could take on 
Him the whole nature of man, without thereby becoming subject 
to sin : nay, He must have done so, in order that He might thus 
show that it is possible for one who is entirely human to preserve 
himself free from sin. Since his time, both truths have continued 
to be recognised in the Church — the perfect manhood of Christ, 
and the sinless character of that manhood. In the Council of 
Chalcedon (451) this truth first found its suitable expression ; 
for, after establishing His full Divinity, it speaks of Christ as 
" truly man, with a rational soul and body of like essence with 
us as to His manhood, and in all things like us, sin excepted." 

This determined the doctrine, at least within the domain of 
the Church; and there did not occur with regard to it, any 
important change of opinion. It now became more a subject of 
theological discussion, although it was not treated in a compre- 
hensive spirit until modern times. 

In the Middle Ages, theologians were content to abide by the 
decisions of the Church ; but at the same time they fully recog- 
nised the importance of the subject. We find this feature of 

B 



18 



INTRODUCTION. 



sinlessness in the character of Jesus brought prominently forward 
by the most opposite parties in the Church ; and we may be very 
sure that, in the well-known controversy of the Thomists and 
the Scotists, about the immaculate conception of the Yirgin 
Mary, one chief point of interest for the defenders of that tenet 
was, that by proving the perfect original purity of the Mother 
of our Lord, they might also establish that of the Saviour Him- 
self. We only mention as worthy of notice, that the question, 
as to whether it was possible for Christ to commit sin, was 
thus answered in the schools by the mouth of one of their prin- 
cipal representatives : that the human soul of Christ, in itself and 
apart from its union with the Divine Logos, might have sinned, 
but that through that union sin became impossible. 

While the middle-age theology continued in unwavering 
allegiance to what the apostolic and the ancient Church had 
laid down concerning the person of Christ, there arose a doc- 
trinal corruption of quite a different kind, which did not re- 
late immediately to theology, but which extended to every de- 
partment of the Church and of Christian life generally. Christ 
Himself, although doctrinally believed in, began to disappear 
from the consciousness and life of Christianity as a living and 
immediately present personality, and as the one only medium of 
salvation. The Church, with its mediation of priests, pressed 
Him into the back-ground, and His pretended earthly representa- 
tive impiously usurped His authority. Undoubtedly, the principal 
merit of the Reformers consists in their Laving restored to its 
rightful position the Divine and human person of Christ as the 
only ground of salvation, and re-established on a sure footing 
the immediate character of the relation of believers to Him, and 
through Him to God the Father. In doing this, they felt Christ 
present to their inmost soul in His Divine and human dignity, in 
His redeeming and saving power ; and this they felt by the 
immediate experience of faith and of life. Nor did they require 



HISTORY AND LITERATURE OF THE SUBJECT. 19 

other proof of what carried its own evidence along with it by the 
new nature which it wrought, of what was confirmed and sealed 
by the testimony of the Word of God, and the inward witness 
of His Spirit. They received the doctrine concerning Christ as 
set forth by the Church, — the Church universally Christian and 
truly Catholic ; and they felt that the sinlessness of Christ formed 
an essential part of that doctrine. Hence we find this dogma 
enunciated by them : only we discover in their writings no minute 
discussion of it, or attempt to demonstrate its truth ; for to them 
it appears to have been not a position requiring proof, but an 
immediate certainty, an irresistible intuition, something far above 
mere logical demonstration. But whenever the doctrines of the 
Evangelical Church had to be built into a systematic whole, this 
dogma had to undergo a more thorough discussion. This began 
to be accomplished already by the dogmaticians of the second 
generation after the Reformation. Still further was the work 
carried on by subsequent systematisers, particularly in works on 
doctrinal and on moral theology. This has been particularly 
the case in modern times, since people have become conscious of 
the deep importance of the doctrine of the sinlessness in treating 
of Christology, and indeed of Christianity in general. 

And nothing has done more to awaken this conviction than 
the doubts which have arisen in recent times upon this subject, 
even within the domain of Christian belief and of theology. 
Indeed, the development of the doer tine which we have sketched 
above, had not been carried far enough for the sinlessness of 
Christ to be at once recognised by all men as a perfectly unques- 
tionable fact. As early as the ages of ancient Christianity do we 
see suspicions arising and limitations adduced. But it is in 
modern times that we first find our doctrine the object of decided 
and detailed attack. Let it be observed, we do not speak here 
so much of the positive position (which has been held in connec- 
tion with a certain fanatical representation), that Christ did 



20 



INTRODUCTION. 



actually share our sinful flesh ; we rather refer to the direct call- 
ing in question of the sinlessness of Christ as a possibility and as 
a fact, as it has been called in question by Rationalism, both 
deistic and pantheistic. 

These doubts assailed the very heart of Christianity, and there 
could not fail to be a reaction against them from the Christian 
side. If, in former times, the moral character of Christ had often 
been the subject of special discussion, this was now of necessity 
much more the case ; and we find a whole series of special writ- 
ings upon this subject, with direct reference to the question of the 
sinlessness of Christ. But not only were more numerous works 
thus called forth : there was also a more acute apprehension of 
the idea of sinlessness, and a more profound investigation of the 
questions involved in it. No one has given a more powerful im- 
pulse in this direction than Schleiermacher : and this he has done, 
partly by separate expressions, partly, and more especially, by 
the fact, that he has given to the doctrine of the sinlessness of 
Christ a prominent place in his system, inasmuch as he conceived 
of Christianity as fundamentally a system of redemption, and 
made redemption to consist in the communication of the sinless 
nature of the Redeemer. 

Like the works referred to, this Treatise is devoted to a dis- 
cussion of the doctrine of the sinlessness of Christ; but it differs 
from them in regard to the object aimed at, and that especially 
in two points, In the first place, hitherto the doctrine of the 
sinless character of Christ has been almost invariably contem- 
plated in the light of an immediate postulate of faith, as a neces- 
sary consequence of the incarnation, or as an indispensable condi- 
tion of the work of Christ as Redeemer ; and those who have 
thus treated it have not proceeded from this standing-point to a 
more detailed investigation and proof of the fact itself. We, on 
the contrary, leave quite out of account this immediate conviction 



HISTORY AND LITERATURE OF THE SUBJECT. 21 

of the truth of the doctrine (without, at the same time, calling it 
in question, or denying that it may be right and valid in its own 
place), and begin by seeking to establish and vindicate our 
belief in the sinlessness of Christ. In the mode of proof that we 
shall adopt in so doing, our leading arguments will be borrowed 
from the historical appearance of Christ, and the effects it pro- 
duced. Second, When we have, in this way, established the fact 
of the sinlessness, as far as the nature of the subject will permit, 
we will not, as has hitherto been done, make use of the results 
thus gained for a dogmatical, so much as an apologetical, 
purpose. That is, we will not proceed at once to fit-in the doc- 
trine of Christ's sinlessness as an essential part of the edifice of 
Christian truth, in order to show what its necessary position there, 
as consequence or cause, may be : but what we establish on the 
belief in the sinlessness of Christ is, first of all, faith in Christ 
Himself as the Medium of the Divine Revelation, and the Founder 
of the perfect work of salvation. We do not say, Because Christ 
was the Son of God, He could not be subject to sin ; or, because 
He was the Redeemer, He must have been free from sin. What 
we say is, Because He was free from sin, and showed Himself in 
all respects perfectly pure and holy, we are warranted in believ- 
ing that He was the Son of God, the Deliverer from all sin, the 
Author of true redemption, and the Revealer of redeeming truth. 
Our way lies, if the expression be right understood, not outwards 
from within, but inwards from without. Our method is simply 
this : From the impression which Jesus made, from the way in 
which He expressed His consciousness concerning Himself, and 
from the effects which have gone forth from Him, we argue to 
what His moral personality must have been : and only when we 
have discovered the peculiar nature of that, do we proceed to 
draw our conclusion as to the Divine origin of such a personality. 
In a word, His sinlessness is the point to be first proved, not 
that we may rest there, but that we may thence recognise the 



22 



INTRODUCTION. 



true dignity of Christ as the Son of God and Redeemer of the 
world. 

Now, while we follow this historical and apologetical course, 
we do not mean to assert, either that this is an absolutely new 
idea, or again, that this is the only true way to be taken — the 
dogmatical or philosophical being regarded as utterly valueless. 
We affirm neither the one nor the other. But, while we admit 
that hints of an apologetic-historical treatment of the subject may 
be met elsewhere, we still expect to be able to solve the problem 
from our point of view in a fuller and clearer way than has been 
hitherto done. And, in doing so, we fully admit the importance 
of the dogmatical and philosophical treatment of the subject ; be- 
cause we know that, although Christianity be historical, still it is 
a history which involves a series of eternal truths which require 
to be systematically arranged and demonstrated. We are per- 
suaded that, if both methods are rightly pursued, they must lead 
to the same result. Doctrinally to maintain the sinlessness of 
Christ were to believe an empty form, if that doctrine had no 
basis of historical reality ; and the historical reality would lie on 
something fragmentary and detached were it not organically 
united with the sum-total of the Christian system : in the last 
instance, the two fall into one. But while, on that very account, 
the two methods mutually presuppose and require one another, 
still, in their practical treatment, they must be carefully distin- 
guished and kept separate ; and we enter our protest against any 
one applying to our discussion a measure by which he would 
be justified in determining upon a dogmatical treatment of the 
subject. 



PAET FIBST. 

THE IDEA OF SINLESSNESS, AND ITS REALIZATION 
IN THE PERSON OF JESUS. 



CHAPTER I. 

OF SIN, 

The conception of Sinlessness is determined by the conception 
of Sin. These two ideas have a meaning only when a Divine 
order of life, and a highest end of being connected with it, are 
recognised. 

It is the nature of Reason to recognize Design in the ordering 
of all things. It is its part to perceive and take cognizance of 
what is connected and according to law, of that which, in and 
for itself, holds eternally true. Were reason to contemplate the 
nature and development of things as something accidental, capri- 
cious, void of purpose and plan, it must first abandon itself. For 
it is only with order and law that reason can deal ; and where 
these are not really perceived by it, it must at least presuppose 
their existence : where undeniable disturbances occur, it is neces- 
sitated to feel and to believe a higher solution of the difficulty. 



24 



OF SIN. 



The Order of the World can, in the last instance, be regarded 
only as a Unity embracing and enclosing all things. There can- 
not possibly be two different orders of the World, there can be 
but one ; and this Order cannot have two different ends or ter- 
mini, but only one. But this one World-Order unfolds itself in 
different spheres: it unfolds itself as the Order of Nature, in 
which Force reigns, and as the Order of moral Life, where Li- 
berty rules. 

In the domain of Nature, everything that takes place is accom- 
plished by a Necessity in the things themselves ; and even in 
those cases where we discover something resembling freedom, as 
in the actions of animals, it must be borne in mind that even 
their impulses spring from a mere unconscious natural desire, 
that is, Instinct. Now we call a Law of Nature that which 
operates thus in the domain of natural life. This law of nature 
is not, however, a power acting from without, but it is the nature 
and constitution of the things themselves making itself irresistibly 
felt. Therefore here the law is immediately one with its fulfil- 
ment ; nor can there ever be a contradiction between these two. 
Hence also, when apparent deviations from the ordinary course 
occur, when dangerous and destructive agencies enter in, we 
cannot speak of imputation or of guilt in this province, because 
Nature does only what she cannot help doing. 

The marvels of this Course of Nature, with its connection and 
consistency in all its parts, from the scarce perceptible atom to 
the sun-systems in their unchanging paths, are vast and incompre- 
hensible. But, in the midst of these miracles of nature, there 
arises a miracle greater still. It is the miracle of a will which 
interrupts the course of nature ; it is free personality making her 
subject to Mind. On the basis of the life of nature there rises up 
a moral life — an ethical kingdom within the Kingdom of Nature. 
Of necessity an Order must reign within this kingdom too. It 
were folly, indeed, to suppose that that most wondrous cosmical 



OF SIN. 



25 



arrangement existed for no other purpose than to serve as a 
scene over which Caprice might bear sway ; that preparations so 
pregnant with design, should issue in results void of reason or 
purpose. But the order to be established here will undoubtedly 
differ radically from the order of Nature. Thus, moral person- 
ality (even although situated in the midst of the course of nature) 
still possesses a full consciousness that it is not ruled thereby, 
nor can be, but that it has in it a principle which is determined 
by a power beyond and above nature. And this principle is 
Free-will. The order which rules in this domain is free, like that 
will itself ; it is not established by force. The law is not sum- 
marily enforced : it must be acknowledged and received by the 
will of him who is subject to it. But the law may not be thus 
accepted, a contrary line of action may be chosen: hence the 
possibility of coming into collision with the law, and of a conse- 
quent disturbance of the order, not now an apparent disturbance 
merely (as in nature), but a real one. And this disturbance, 
although it may, by the hand of the Almighty Disposer, be con- 
verted into a means of good, and thus be ultimately made service- 
able to the cause of Order, does nevertheless carry along with 
it to him who freely commits it, the character of Guilt. 

In the order of nature, Law does not appear as Duty, because 
it is performed at once. In the moral order, on the contrary, it 
becomes conditionally duty, because here the law, and the will 
which performs that law, may be separate. Where the law com- 
mands — when it is obliged to take the form of " Thou shalt !"— 
this argues an unsatisfactory moral condition; for where the 
moral condition is what it should be, law does not come as a 
power from without enforcing obedience, but is the in-dwelling 
principle of action. Not that this state involves actual opposi- 
tion to the moral order ; for it is possible that due obedience 
may be rendered to law even when it comes from without, and 
assumes an authoritative attitude. Ileal opposition arises only 



26 



OF SIN. 



when the personal will refuses obedience to law, which it yet 
clearly understands, and performs the very reverse of what it 
enjoins. This is what we call Transgression, Disobedience to 
law, and, when relating to others, Wrong : and in this lies the 
most general idea we have of Sin. But this definition is entirely 
formal and external: we must therefore look for other particu- 
lars, which regard not merely the form of action, but its sub- 
stance, and which relate to action not merely as such, but in 
its inward and abiding source. 

In the first place, it is evident that sin, being a deviation from 
the true order of life, and a frustration of the end which that 
order has in view, is thus a coming-short of the true destination 
of man. It is a want of goodness ; and, since goodness in itself 
has a blessing and ennobling effect upon life, without it, there is no 
true life ; that is, sin divests life of its completeness and its blessed- 
ness. But it were false to conclude from this, that sin is nothing 
more than limitation, restriction, negation. The negation that is 
in sin turns naturally into something positive, something posi- 
tively wrong ; and indeed it implies this. Even sins of omission 
are not merely negative — actual sins much less. Only in one 
case could sin be regarded as something merely negative, that is, 
if the will that would not choose the good, could at once suspend 
its activity altogether, and will nothing at all. But the will can 
never will absolutely nothing : when it shuts itself out against 
the good, it does inevitably choose its opposite ; when it con- 
temns order, it surrenders itself to caprice ; when it thrusts from 
it the true principle of life, it admits a false one in its place. 
Thus sin is not only a coming-short of the goal, it is a step in 
another direction ; not merely disturbance, it is perversion ; not 
merely an incidental circumstance in the development towards 
goodness, it is an apostasy from goodness. The feeling of guilt 
which accompanies sin, at once to judge and to punish it, bears 
witness to this. To this, too, bears witness that view which 



OF SIN". 



27 



regards sin in its fullest manifestation as rebellion against Divine 
and human order — the culminating point of which is reached 
when man, setting everything noble and holy at defiance, puts 
himself in the place of God (1 Thess. ii. 4). In such exhibitions 
(and we see them unmistakeably occurring in history), it is truly 
not a want of good alone that we must acknowledge, or a series 
of stages of development : no, it is a principle antagonistic to 
good we see here — it is a destructive power. 

But it is not merely those actions which meet the eye that we 
must here bring under notice : the important matter is the inward 
source from which they proceed ; and only by fixing our attention 
upon that, can we attain a clear idea of the nature of sin. Too 
often does it happen that details hide from our view the whole ; 
content to contemplate the phenomena, we forget the substance. 
So, too, in the case before us. We own the existence of sins ; 
that no man would deny ; but of sin we will hear nothing. And 
yet sin is the root from which all acts of sin shoot forth ; and the | 
man who will not go beyond the latter, but stops short at 
faults and failings, transgressions and crimes, without penetrat- 
ing to their source — the perverted will, which is the source of all 
the evil — must come to a conclusion as destitute of wisdom and 
insight, as that of a physician whose diagnosis goes no further 
than the symptoms of the disease, and leaves its hidden causes 
unexplored. All the external actions of a man are the result 
of an internal antecedent ; and what decides the character of 
the outward action, in a moral point of view, is that inward 
spring from which it proceeds. There is doubtless an objective 
standard by which we measure moral actions ; but, whenever the 
question comes to be one concerning the relation of the agent to 
moral order, then the judgment pronounced upon him is rightly 
regarded by us as not determined by external compliance with 
that standard of outward morality. What determines our 
judgment is, above all, the disposition of the man from which his 



28 OF SIN. 

conduct proceeds. It is not what we see with the eye, not what 
we may reduce to human measurement, that is of primary im- 
portance. It is not the quantity of deeds done that imparts to 
them a character of merit or demerit : much more is it the qua- 
lity and worth of those actions, as estimated by the spirit which 
they embody and reflect. And as this is true of goodness, so is 
it also of evil. Sinful actions are determined as such solely by 
the inner principle from which they proceed ; and there may be 
sinful frames and dispositions which are scarcely ever manifested 
in external life, and which men never suspect, which nevertheless 
are the signs of deep depravity, and of a frightful entanglement 
in sin. " Those things which proceed out of the mouth come 
from the heart, and they defile the man" (Matt. xv. 18 *). 

But if we fix our earnest attention upon the real inner source 
of sin, we will not run the risk of adopting that false method of 
viewing it, which looks no further than its isolated external 
manifestations. The whole of life, and of moral life in particular, 
developes itself systematically; its several parts are intimately 
bound up together, and form one Whole. The opinion, that a 
human being can, in virtue of his moral liberty, perpetrate in 
wanton caprice, first an action truly good, and then immediately 
thereafter an evil action, only the most thoughtless folly could 
entertain for a moment. It may, indeed, appear at times to 
occur: we sometimes see an action that we would pronounce 
generous and noble performed in the midst of a course of conduct 
undoubtedly bad ; sometimes again, we mark an unexpected fall 
in an honourable and godly walk. But it were incorrect to ascribe 
these occurrences to mere accident or caprice. If they are appa- 
rently so, it does not follow that there is no inner and unseen con- 
nection between them and the rest of that life in which they appear, 
however vainly we may attempt to discover what that connection 
is. In truth, everything that a man does comes from his whole 
1 Compare also Matt. v. 28. 



OF SIN. 



29 



nature : his actions are nothing else but the occasional expres- 
sions of that nature — intimations to the world without of what is 
going on within. And this is seen especially in the matter of 
sin. Every sin has its antecedents, as well as its consequents : 
every sin is prepared beforehand, and carries along with it 
effects. Every sin springs from spiritual blindness, and works 
spiritual blindness in its turn : it is a daughter of lust, and it 
becomes in its turn the mother of lust. 1 If sin have once 
entered into the sphere of mortal life, it is all over with its 
purity: to that life the state of perfect innocence can never 
come back. It leaves behind it inevitably a shadow upon the 
moral consciousness, and a yet more fatal inclination to go 
further on in the path of death. Sin is born from sin, and sin 
punishes itself by sin. And what connects together separate and 
single sins, is just the sinful nature, or sin considered as a prin- 
ciple from which all sinful actions flow. 

These views of sin are in close connection with the nature of 
the moral law. The fact, that the only true estimate we can 
form of a moral character must be one based on a knowledge of 
the inner nature, and on a comprehensive view of that character 
considered as a whole, has its explanation in this, that the law is 
itself the expression of an inner life, and that a consistent and con- 
nected life. Nor can appearances be allowed to deceive us here 
either. It is true that the law, especially the revealed law, may 
come to us, in the first instance, as a demand from without. Not 
the less on that account has it really taken its rise from a source 
within, from a spiritual life; and it is that life which impresses upon 
the law that proceeds from it the character of righteousness, truth, 
holiness, and love, — in a word, of all that it is itself. And the main 
object of the law is none other than this, to call forth, to repro- 
duce in those for whom it is designed, a life similar to that from 
which itself proceeded. It is true, the law may come in the form 

1 James i. 15. — " Then when lust hath conceived, it bringeth forth sin." 



30 



OP SIN. 



of a number of separate injunctions and commands ; but these 
have their true significance only as members of a complete, 
organic whole. The principal demand of the law is not obser- 
vance of its dictates in detail, but obedience to the whole. This 
truth is strikingly illustrated by those passages of the Word of 
God which speak of the transgression of a single command as a 
violation of the whole law, because a departure from the spirit 
and principle of the law. 1 Now, since the law seeks to mould 
and fashion the whole nature of the inward life, and since it does 
so as an indivisible whole, the question of all questions — that on 
which everything depends — comes ( to be this : What is the 
relation of man to the law — in the inmost roots and springs of 
his being, on the one hand, and, on the other, in the sum-total of 
actions in outward life which proceed therefrom? And the 
relation can, in reality, be only one of two kinds, for there is no 
third alternative : either it is a relation of self-renunciation and 
obedience, or it is a relation of resistance and disobedience. All 
good springs from the former — all evil from the latter. 2 But 
the one and the other alike is a fundamental fact of the moral 
life, which must exist before the separate acts of will and separate 
deeds of good, in the one case, of evil in the other, can take 
place. In this connection, sin is defined as disobedience. 3 The 
disobedience is not, however, merely in the external action, and 
against the external law : it is disobedience in the temper and 

1 Take, for instance, the following passages :— M If ye fulfil the royal law 
according to the Scriptures, Thou shalt love thy neighbour as thyself, ye do 
well ; but if ye have respect to persons, ye commit sin, and are convinced of 
the law as transgressors. For whosoever shall keep the whole law, and yet 
offend in one point, he is guilty of all." — James ii. 8-10; compare also verses 
11 and 12. " Whosoever, therefore, shall break one of these least command- 
ments, and shall teach men so, he shall be called the least in the kingdom of 
heaven." — Matt. v. 19. 

2 " They that are after the flesh, do mind the things of the flesh ; but they that 
are after the Spirit, the things of the Spirit." — Rom. viii. 5. 

3 It is called Tecc^rM in Rom. v. 19, and Heb. ii. 2. 



OF SIN. 



31 



disposition ; it is, furthermore, disobedience against the whole 
law, against the principle of the law, Hence it is the spirit of 
disobedience : it is taking up a false position in opposition to the 
true — that is, the lawful. 

And yet, so long as, in our endeavour to determine the nature 
of sin, we contemplate it merely as something opposed to the 
moral law, we can never attain a full insight into its deepest 
nature. To this we shall be conducted by the question : Where 
does the law originate, and what end has it in view % for law 
does not appoint itself. Behind every law there is a life of 
which it is the expression, and a power of which it is the com- 
mand. In the case of the moral law, the life it expresses cannot 
be merely the life of nature, nor the power it enforces merely the 
power of nature. For the moral does, from its very nature, 
transcend the merely natural. The principle of the unity, the 
harmony and consistency of law, is the unity of that consciousness 
from which it comes forth ; and there is only one will that can 
say to our will, Thou shalt ! — only one will that has a full right 
to demand the obedience of our will. The law must take its rise 
in a personal being — must spring from a life itself moral : by this 
alone can it be created, from this alone go forth. Now, can it 
be man himself that gives himself a law ; can his single con- 
sciousness contain a twofold relation of himself to himself, viz., as 
both law-giver and law-receiver ? We might be led to this con- 
clusion from a reference to the natural moral law (as it is called) 
— we mean, the law in the conscience. Conscience appears, at 
first sight, to belong entirely to the human ; and this has led 
some to build up a system of autonomy in man, according to 
which he has the sole moral determining of himself, and is his 
own law-giver and moral governor. Exception must, however, 
be taken to this view on the following grounds : — It is true that 
conscience has a subjective side, — there is a human point of view 
from which it may be regarded ; but this does not make it ab- 



32 



OF SIN. 



solutely alike in all men. On the contrary, the fact is certain, 
that conscience is to some extent dissimilar in different men, 
under different conditions. It is certain that, to some extent, 
conscience takes a colouring from the conditions of the inner life, 
and even from the outward circumstances in which a man is 
placed. But beyond the range of these deviations and divergences, 
there is in the human conscience something fixed and permanent : 
and that is conscience per se, regarded as the seat and organ of 
an original capacity to distinguish between good and evil. The 
decisions of conscience are not based on proofs or inferences : 
they spring up spontaneously, and with intuitive demonstration, 
within the breast. Everywhere its voice is heard strongly ad- 
monishing to choose the good, and sternly warning against the 
evil. Conscience, however, in its deepest nature — that is, con- 
sidered as an original moral power in man, which can never be 
entirely destroyed — is not, in this aspect, so much productive as 
receptive, not originative so much as acquiescent, not command- 
ing, but rather acting in obedience to a law higher than itself. 
This truth is attested by the common consciousness of all men : 
it finds its expression in the fact, that the dictates of conscience 
have at all times been acknowledged to be the voice of a Law- 
giver and a Judge who is above man. 

The correctness of this view may be otherwise demonstrated. 
Wherever in the sphere of life we find an all-powerful and 
universal law enforcing itself, we are compelled to acknowledge 
that it has sprung from the very same source from which that 
life itself is derived. It follows, that the source of both the law 
and the life must be something higher than either, and lie beyond 
the sphere of that life. It is the power which determined the 
conditions under which that life is intended to unfold itself and 
fulfil its destiny, and under which alone it can do so. The plant, 
the animal, or the star, did not choose for itself its law of life ; 
but received it from that creative Power which gave it being : 



OF SIN. 



33 



and that Power is Omnipotence ; hence it is that it moves 
and lives according to its own implanted law with uncleviating 
certainty. The same holds true of man and his order of life, 
only with this difference, that in his case that order is one of 
liberty, because it is a moral order. If man had made himself, 
then would he give himself a law: in no other circumstances 
can he be his own lawgiver. The same Power in which his ex- 
istence is rooted and grounded, must create and establish the law 
of his life. At the same tirne^ it is on this, and this alone, that 
the authority and majesty, the eternal validity and the sacred 
inviolability of the law depends. Further, it is only under this 
condition that man can possibly entertain that faith in the ab- 
solute, final victory of the good over the evil which is indispens- 
able to all moral life. For, in order to have that faith, it is not 
enough to know that the good has a certain authority and highest 
right given it by man : no, we must possess a much higher assur- 
ance ; we must be convinced that the final triumph of goodness 
is a part of the grand world-plan ; we must not only believe, but 
know, that the great design of creation, the reason for which the 
world exists at all, is, that in it goodness may come to its full 
realization. And this certainty can be gained only from the 
conviction, that the moral law of human life has its source in 
the very same Power which called the whole economy of the 
world into existence, and which is conducting this present dis- 
pensation to a glorious termination. If, then, the moral law be 
necessarily derived from a personal Being ; and if that Being 
be the same with Him who summoned the world into exist- 
ence, and who governs all things, then is the source of the 
moral law none other than the only living , the personal God. And 
if this be true of the law in conscience, it is still more indisput- 
ably true of the revealed law; for that is so thoroughly the 
expression of the will of a holy personal Being, that only when 
regarded as such has it any import and significance at all ; and, 

c 



34 



OF SIN. 



indeed, it must either be received as such, or else rejected alto- 
gether. 

Thus the truth appears to be not Autonomy but Theonomy : 
man is not his own law-giver, it is God who appoints the law for 
him. From which it follows, that what we have to do with in 
the order of human life, ethically considered, is not the law as 
such, but much rather, in the law and beyond the law, with 
its holy Originator. There is one Lawgiver, says St James, 
(iv. 12.) He comes to us as a personal Being, and addresses to 
us that sublime command : Be ye holy, for I am holy. Viewed 
in this light, the law is no longer the order of life alone, it is 
equally the connecting link of life, the bond of union between man 
and God. And this gives a deep and wide significance to sin, 
because it thus appears not merely as disobedience against God, 
but as a severing asunder of the chain of life which binds man to 
God. (This thought is the basis of the whole parable of the 
prodigal son, as recorded in Luke xv. The sin of the prodigal 
is represented as consisting chiefly in the fact, that he had sepa- 
rated himself from his father, had sought to sever the family-tie 
which held him, and to live independently of his father— for him- 
self alone. Compare especially verses 15 and 18.) Sin is thus 
a violation of the covenant with God ; it is breaking with God : 
the sinner separates himself from God, and lives apart from Him. 
Ultimately this spirit rises into hostility against Him, open enmity 
and hate, as we read in Romans viii. 7 : " The carnal mind is 
enmity against God ; for it is not subject to the law of God, 
neither indeed can be." Only when we have taken all this into 
consideration do we fully discover the essential traits and linea- 
ments of sin. 

The will of God concerning us, which finds expression in the 
law, is the will of holy love. In it God gives Himself to us, in 
order to make us holy and blessed in His fellowship. And the 
only fitting relation that man can occupy with reference to this 



OF SIN. 



35 



holy, loving will of God, is that of entire self-surrender, in a spirit 
of unquestioning trust and grateful love ; in a word, of lively 
faith. Where this faith exists, and the love that flows from it, 
it follows as a natural consequence, that the soul will surrender 
itself wholly and spontaneously to the holy will of God. It is 
in this sense that the Author of the New Covenant sums up the 
whole contents of the law and the prophets in the one idea of 
love — perfect love towards God and man ; and that in the place 
of all other commandments, He puts that one which comprehends 
them all, namely, the command to love. It is in this sense that, 
on the one hand, faith is said to be the source from which all holi- 
ness of life flows, and that, on the other hand, love is called the 
fulfilling of the law. The meaning of this is, that for faith and love 
united in indissoluble oneness, law imposes no more its commands 
from without. On the contrary, the spirit of the law is implanted 
by faith and love in the human will, as a principle to regulate the 
whole man. The man has found the centre and nucleus of his i 
life in God, and has therefore attained true liberty, perfect con- 
tentment, perfect blessedness. 

But if it be true that the only real fulfilling of the law, viz., 
that which springs from the deepest nature of man, has for its 
necessary condition, (as has been shown,) a personal self-surren- 
der to God in faith and love : it must of necessity be likewise true, 
that sin, that is, the transgression of the law, has its source in 
the opposite of that, in the want of personal self-surrender to 
God, in the want of faith, and of love : in a word, in man's having 
severed himself from his true and proper centre of life in God. 
This consideration reveals to us sin in its inseparable connection 
with unbelief, from which it originates, on the one hand ; while, 
on the other, it begets it in its turn. 

With reference to the dicta of the Bible on this subject, we do 
not call attention to particular passages, (such as John xvi. 9 : 
" When the Comforter is come, He will reprove the world of sin, 



36 



OF SIN, 



because they believe not on Me ;" or Romans xiv. 23 : "What- 
soever is not of faith is sin" — least of all to the latter, for " faith" 
is there used pre-eminently in a moral sense.) What we have 
more especially to bear in mind is the general fact, that one of 
the leading peculiarities of the Old and New Testaments gene- 
rally, and more especially of the Johannean and Pauline writings, 
is, that they never omit to connect immediately, the ethical with 
the religious element: thus, more particularly, the connection 
of sin with unbelief, and of holiness with faith, is never for a 
moment lost sight of. 

When man severs himself from the centre of his life in God, he 
cannot stop there. If his life is not to go to pieces, it must rest 
upon something. If it forsakes the true central-point of life ap- 
pointed it, it must choose another, and, guided by caprice, 
(since it has nothing else to guide it,) a wrong one for itself. 
And this is the point where the negative character of sin becomes 
converted into something positive. The first thing that man 
turns to when he has forsaken God, is the world, expecting to find 
satisfaction in the good things which it offers. But when he sur- 
renders himself to the world, to the creature, he is possessed with 
the single desire to make everything serviceable to his own enjoy- 
ment or advantage. The end of all his labour and endeavour is 
self : in every relation, even in those which bear the appearance 
of love, he seeks in reality himself alone. This is expressed in 
Scripture by St John in the words : All that is in the world, the 
lust of the flesh, and the lust of the eye, and the pride of life, is 
not of the Father, but is of the world. 

The Ego becomes the real centre of life, round which all 
thoughts and feelings revolve. That self-love which in itself is 
natural and right, nay, which is the basis for the full develop- 
ment of the Divine image in man, becomes converted, that is, 
perverted, into selfishness, which is opposed both to nature and 
to God. This selfishness renders man impotent to surrender 



OF SIN. 



37 



himself to a Higher than himself : it makes him a slave to his 
own little particular designs and ends : and finally, it shuts him 
up in himself, either in dull indifference, or in decisive hate and 
defiance. In all this we recognise the real essence of sin, and 
especially that characteristic mark of sin, whereby it becomes 
immediately its own inevitable punishment. For if it be true that 
in faith and love towards God all goodness is implied, it is not 
less certain that, in that unbelieving selfishness which severs itsel 
from God, all sin is included : selfishness is thus to be regarded 
as the radical sin, as the principle of all sin. And if it be true that 
it is only from fellowship with God, as the only centre of life, that 
all true life and perfect peace flow forth, then it must follow, that, 
when man turns away from that source of life and seeks himself 
alone, he will of necessity consume himself in restless desire and 
unsatisfied longings, and at last find the end of his selfishness and 
sin to be death and hell. For the wages of sin, says the apostle, 
are death, (Rom. vi. 23.) 

Inasmuch as this perverted selfishness and self-seeking consti- 
tutes the essential nature of sin, we shall have to view it as the 
impelling and motive power in every development of sinfulness. 
Although it has come last in the view we have presented, it might 
with equal truth be taken as the point from which everything 
takes its rise : only the objection to that is, that selfishness works 
in the first instance imperceptibly, as in the sensible forms of sin, 
and it is not till subsequently that its more marked features come 
into view. 

To sum up in a few sentences what has been adduced in the 
preceding pages. Sin is opposition to law, lawlessness and wrong ; 
it is a transgression against the moral order of life, and a move- 
ment in the direction of a false end of life. But sin only occurs 
where there was a previous destination to God's fellowship, to 
Religion. It is a violation of an order appointed by the holy God 
for the preservation of that fellowship, and with it of the blessed- 



38 



OF SIN. 



ness of man. Accordingly, the real nature of sin is to be appre- 
hended by us as consisting in severance from God — as godless- 
ness. It is the aggregate of what separates man from God : it 
is a departure from the true centre of life in God. And with this 
there hangs together, in necessary connection, that man appoints 
for himself a new and a false centre of life in his own self, remain- 
ing in which, it being utterly unable to give him any lasting 
satisfaction, he must, in the end, inwardly consume himself, and 
so perish. 

Having thus seen wherein consists the essential nature of sin T 
let us now, in order to throw still fuller light upon the subject,, 
say a word on its effects. 

The proper seat of sin is the will. But the spirit which mani- 
fests itself in the will is the very same spirit that is seen at work 
in the thoughts and feelings, in the imagination and the fancy ; 
and this spirit becomes a living personality only by being united, 
by means of the soul, with a material body. Now, whatever 
makes the will go out in a wrong direction, whatever introduces 
into the region over which the will presides a power which inter- 
feres with the development of life, and produces desecrating or 
destructive effects, must produce like effects in the whole region 
of the spirit and the soul : nay, through the soul those evil influ- 
ences will extend even to the body ; and thus the whole person 
will be affected by them. The moral blindness that has at all 
times been found to accompany sin, the perversion, the contami- 
nation, the servitude of the will, which sin brings along with it, 
have, as their inevitable consequence, an increased perversion, 
likewise, of the moral judgment; an obscuration of knowledge, 
especially in things moral and divine ; the pollution of the imagi- 
nation ; the unbridling of the fancy ; the degradation of the entire 
nature ; the enfeebling of the whole soul ; and the ruin of the 
organs and powers of the body. 

Man forms a unity : a whole made up of many parts. But 



OF SIN. 



39 



this unity is to be regarded only as the foundation of a higher 
oneness, to be brought to perfection in him as a being made in 
the image of God, in living fellowship with that God. Now this 
intended union is precluded by sin. And not only so, sin does 
not merely obstruct it, it raises up in its place its very opposite. 
That man who has, by reason of sin, been brought into a condition 
of hostility with God, falls necessarily into opposition with himself 
and all mankind. Twofoldness, manifoldness, enter in where har- 
mony was destined to reign. True oneness, true harmony in man, 
is possible, only when that which is Godlike in him, that is, the 
mind, acquiesces in the Divine order of life, and governs the whole 
being in conformity therewith. But when man has once severed 
himself from the only true centre of life, that is, from God, then does 
that power which is intended to connect and unite his personal life, 
that is, his mind kindred to God, lose the central and sovereign 
position which of right belongs to it. Man ceases to be lord of 
himself and of his own nature. The various powers which make 
up his complex nature, begin to carry on, each for itself, an in- 
dependent existence. The flesh lusteth against the spirit, and the 
spirit wages a fruitless war with the flesh, (Gal. v. 17.) Sin- 
ful desire becomes dominant : and while the man seems to be in 
the enjoyment of all imaginable liberty, the truth is, he has lost 
the only true liberty, and has become a slave to himself ; for 
" whosoever committeth sin is the servant of sin," (John viii. 34 ; 
Romans vi. 16-23.) For he is now a dependant of his own self, 
under the dominion of that worst of tyrants ; and being the slave 
of self, he is also a slave to pleasure, and to all the objects which 
it requires to satisfy it. 

This inward fall is ever attended by an alienation from his 
fellow-men. Where one's own personality is destroyed, it is im- 
possible to expect that any true reverence for the personality of 
another will remain. Where selfishness has taken the place of 
that love which forms the only fitting relation between men, of 



40 



OF SIN. 



necessity the bond of durable fellowship is snapt asunder. Every 
person is degraded into a mere tool for the purposes of each petty 
self ; and, with this object, is either plundered, where that can be 
done, or where it cannot, becomes a mark for envy and hate. 

These destructive tendencies of sin render it absolutely impos- 
sible for that moral fellowship to exist within its domain, which 
is the destination of mankind, to be one day realized within the 
kingdom of God. There certainly exists in man an indestruct- 
ible desire for fellowship and social intercourse, which prompts 
even men living in sin to consociate with one another, in order 
by mutual co-operation to attain their ends. But this external 
co-operation is not internal harmony ; this union does not flow 
from true communion ; this fellowship does not spring up beneath 
the forming hand of love. It is nothing more than a selfish com- 
bination to further mutual interests, or to oppose common foes. 
In this way arises a sort of counterpart and converse to the true 
kingdom of God — an inverted picture, as it were, of its holy and 
sinless community ; a pseudo- organism of sin, a kind of kingdom 
and power of evil. This power we see at work in the history of 
the world. Such a power must disturb, and indeed altogether 
destroy, the life and order of the whole as well as of the indivi- 
duals, and ultimately lead them on to total ruin, if it be not op- 
posed and overthrown by some mightier power. But if there is 
to be any opposition presented to this power of evil, it can only 
come from one quarter, — from a point where sin, in principle and 
in power, has been entirely broken ; it can proceed only from the 
life-giving might of a Person in whom sin had no part and no 
place. And this leads us to open up the idea of Sinlessness : 
after we have discussed it, we shall proceed to direct our atten- 
tion to that Person of whom it is testified to us, that in Him the 
idea of Sinlessness was a reality. 



OF SINLESSNESS. 



41 



CHAPTER II. 

OF SINLESSNESS. 

If the remarks we have made on the nature of sin be correct, 
they naturally suggest what we have to say on the nature of 
Sinlessness : the latter may be set over against the former, in 
corresponding antithesis. 

The idea of Sinlessness, anamartesia, is in the first instance 
a negative idea. It is the absence of antagonism to the moral 
law, and to the Divine will, of which that law is the expres- 
sion ; and this not only in relation to separate acts of will and 
outward actions, but also in relation to the tendency of the 
whole moral nature, and to its most deep-seated disposition. 
We do not speak of Sinlessness when we refer to the absence of 
separate occasions of sin, or indeed to external actions at all : 
the expressions we use with reference to those are such as " irre- 
proaehability," " guiltlessness," etc. When, on the other hand, 
we use the word Sinlessness, we always have in our eye the con- 
dition of the whole life, viewed collectively, and we contemplate 
this in the view of its deepest and lowest nature. 

It is notwithstanding evident that we cannot here stop short at 
mere negations, and that it is not sufficient to regard sinlessness 
as the absence of all opposition to the moral law. This merely 
negative definition of the idea must be complemented with some- 
thing positive. For the conception of sinlessness is one which, 
like that of sin, can be applied only to natures such as have been 
appointed to will and to do in the capacity of moral agents : in 
the case of which, therefore, the omission of such willing and 
doing is itself a deviation from the Divine law of life. Sinlessness 



OF SINLESSNESS. 



must therefore imply positive goodness : goodness of nature and 
goodness in action. Now there is, we admit, a difference be- 
tween mere freedom from transgression of the law and positive 
goodness, between moral integrity and moral perfection. To be 
free from stain of sin, to possess one's moral power unimpaired, 
does involve the possibility of an undisturbed progression to 
moral perfection. But moral perfection, in the fulness of its 
internal energy, in its manifold unfolding of life in every direc- 
tion, is itself much more than the mere negation of sin, and far 
transcends the line of boundary which lies between sin and no 
sin. But this distinction has here really only one intelligible 
meaning. In real life, sinlessness exists only there where posi- 
tive holiness exists. Only in one condition could we conceive of 
sinlessness as mere integrity, mere absence of sin ; that is in the 
state of innocence, where, along with the possibility of sin, good 
was present only as a possible, not as an actual reality. But if 
this condition of innocence is once abandoned, if sin has once come 
in its place, (as the whole course of history shows to have been the 
case,) then sinlessness can really come into existence within the 
domain of sinful humanity, only as inseparably connected with a 
positive and actual perfection of life. For it is evident that the 
man whom we suppose free from sin could not be so, were he to 
refrain from willing and from doing ; and it is further apparent 
that he can only be without sin as one who wills and who acts in a 
given sphere of life, and towards a pre-determined end. But more 
especially, the positive nature of the idea of sinlessness will appear 
from the consideration, that while sinlessness can only unfold 
itself in such a condition, as a power antagonistic to sin, and in 
deadly conflict with it ; in order to carry on this conflict, not 
merely child-like purity and innocence are requisite, but the most 
intense activity, the energetic exercise of the man's whole powers, 
consequently something most unquestionably positive. 

Let us, in like manner, call in to assist us in determining the 



OF SINLESSNESS. 



43 



idea of sinlessness, the idea of true perfection of life, as forming 
its necessary supplement. In this conception of a perfect life 
there is comprehended all that sin opposes itself to, partly as a 
negation of good, partly as something falsely positive. And 
this is true with reference equally to what we have said concern- 
ing the nature, and concerning the effects of sin. 

If it be true that sin is disobedience against law — at first in- 
ward, then manifesting itself in outward actions — if the sinner, 
in transgressing the law, does at the same time sever himself 
from the Divine Author of that law ; if, when he forsakes the 
true Centre of life, he of necessity takes to himself another and 
a wrong one, and makes self his god ; if, further, it is certain 
that this perverted choice of self rather than God, this infatuated 
selfishness and self-seeking, (the very essence and principle of sin,) 
does contain an und fur sich, an element of destruction, a power 
of dissolution and decay, not only to the sinner himself, but also 
to the whole human community : then we gather from all this, 
that we have to contemplate the contrary idea of sinlessness and 
its opposite effects as something positively true and positively 
conserving in the world and in individuals. We have to con- 
template sinlessness as implying, above all, perfect obedience to 
the moral law, in its spirit and in the whole compass of its re- 
quirements. It is an obedience which is a fundamental act of 
the moral nature, and is maintained in uninterrupted consistency 
through all relations of life, even the most difficult. Hence the 
moral life which is the result of this obedience is not a patched 
and piecemeal thing, but a consistent and uniform life, woven of 
one seam throughout ; not a congeries of separate works, but an 
undivided whole, one work. This obedience, which is rendered 
to the law not as mere letter and command, but (from its very 
nature) as the expression of a living will, goes beyond the law to 
its holy Author, and proves itself in this respect by a perfect 
acquiescence in the will of God, by a close and constant walk 



44 



OF SINLESSNESS. 



with God, and by an uninterrupted fellowship with Him. But, 
on the other hand, this acquiescence in the Divine will is based 
in a complete personal self-surrender to God in a spirit of un- 
conditional reliance, simplest confidence, purest love. Hence 
sinless perfection of life can really exist only in him whose faith 
has been made perfect. Moral perfection thus presupposes reli- 
gious perfection, and these two meet together and merge into 
one another in Holiness. 

Where sin, which is the only barrier between man and God, 
has in this way been abolished and been supplanted by holiness, 
the result will be perfect union with God. As inseparably bound 
up therewith, there will be true liberty and a sure dominion over 
ail the circumstances of life. There will be seen what a noble 
thing restored humanity is. A character will be there, harmo- 
nious, peaceful, and blessed: nothing obscure or untrue in its 
knowledge of Divine things, nothing false or feeble in its feelings 
or its fancy. Its body will be kept pure and holy as a temple of the 
living God. As it is one with God and with itself, so is it united by 
the bond of love with all mankind. Finally, a character which 
has thus entirely broken with sin, and is entirely subjugated to the 
holy love of God, will of necessity possess a marvellous power to 
conquer sin without, and to restore a religious and moral com- 
munity in accordance with the will and purposes of God. 1 

It is in this sense of the word, not as negative merely, but as 
essentially positive, that the epithet Sinless is applied to Jesus. 
By this epithet He is characterized as not only free from all sin, 
but as holy. By it is meant that He was filled at every moment 
of His life with the spirit of obedience, and with a love to God 
which surrendered itself unconditionally to His will, and with 

1 The old Protestant Schools gave the following definition of Sinlessness 
(Anamartesia) : plena absentia omnis et originalis et actualis aberrationis 
actionum iiberarum a lege Dei, et omniinodse e contrario cum ea convenientiae 
prsesentia. — Baumgarten and Hoevel, Dissertation. 



OF SINLESSNESS. 



45 



those powers which flow from an uninterrupted communion with 
God. The consequence of this was, not only that no distraction 
caused by sin could find a place either in His inner or His outer 
life, but more than this, everything was both willed by Him and 
carried into execution that the will of God appointed. And it 
is only in this sense of the word that the question of His sinless- 
ness has this great importance. The mere negative conception 
of freedom from sin would be a very unsatisfactory definition of 
the moral and religious character and position of Jesus. But 
the idea receives its full force and positive completeness, — nay 
more, it is seen to involve the most momentous consequences, 
from its relation (a relation founded in the nature of the thing 
itself,) to moral perfection : # in a word, to holiness. 

But before we proceed to apply this idea of sinlessness to the 
person of Jesus, there are one or two additional points which 
require to be discussed. 

In the first place, attention must be directed to a certain dif- 
ference in the use of some expressions belonging to this subject, 
which is closely connected with the different significations attached 
to the word Sin. By sin we understand either that condition of 
the nature of a man, from which, as from a constant source, the 
actual opposition of his life to the Divine law proceeds ; or we un- 
derstand by it this opposition to the Divine law itself. The former 
of these is habitual sinfulness : the latter, actual sin. In life the 
two are inseparably connected : habitual sinfulness expresses 
itself in actual sin, actual sin springs from habitual sinfulness ; 
consequently for both . state and act we use a common expression. 
But of course the distinction must be maintained when we come 
to a more particular definition. The case is similar with refer- 
ence to the state opposed to that of sin. This state, in so far 
as it is a condition of life altogether free from sin, is expressed 
in Greek by the comprehensive word anamartesia, which signifies 



46 



OF SINLESSNESS. 



quite generally the negation of everything that can in any way 
be called Sin. In English, 1 however, we have the still more 
definite expressions, impeccability and sinlessness, both of which 
indeed imply a denial of the existence of sin in the subject of 
whom they are predicated ; but with this difference, that the for- 
mer more expressly negatives the existence of a sinful nature, 
the latter again, that of actual sins. When an individual is said 
to be impeccable, the idea conveyed is, that he is free from ori- 
ginal sin ; when he is called sinless, again, it is meant that he is 
free from actual sin, whether in thought or in action. The 
former expression, as applied to the person of Christ, belongs to 
the province of Doctrinal Theology ; the latter, on the other 
hand, belongs to Historical and Apologetical Theology. Hence 
we make use of the latter alone, without at the same time failing 
to recognize that sinlessness of necessity presupposes a nature 
free from all tendency to sin. 

Further, if the presence of sin in a moral being be negatived, 
this may be done in different senses. We may affirm, with refer- 
ence to such a being, the impossibility of his sinning, of which the 
scholastic expression is, non POSSE peccare. Or we may affirm 
the possibility of his not sinning, — posse NON peccare. Or, finally, 
we may affirm the fact of his not having sinned, — non PECCARE, 
or non PECASSE. 

The first of these is Holiness, as absolute moral perfection — 
which flows from the inmost necessity of the nature of him who 
possesses it, and manifests itself outwardly in his being proof 
against temptation and against evil. The second is Sinless- 
ness regarded simply as innocence. The third is Sinlessness, 
viewed as freedom from actual sin, as manifested in a perfectly 
pure and holy life. The predicate which affirms the impos- 

1 Of course a slight change is here made in the text. The German words 
given by the Author are Unsundlichkeit and Siindlosigkeit, to which impecca- 
bility and sinlessness approach more nearly, perhaps, than any others. 



OF SINLESSNESS. 



47 



sibility of sinning can be applied to God alone ; of Him it is 
true in the absolute necessity of His nature — a necessity which is 
identical with the highest liberty. The idea of a God who could 
sin, or who could even be really tempted to sin, 1 were an ab- 
surdity: God and sin are two conceptions which absolutely 
exclude each other. The possibility of not sinning we must 
ascribe to man in the abstract — to man, viewed as the creature 
fresh from the hand of the Creator. This possibility is implied 
in his liberty, by which he is as yet fully free to abstain from sin. 
To maintain the opposite opinion, viz., that to sin is an absolute 
necessity which the creature cannot escape if he v/ould, were to 
regard sin as from the first having its abode in the human breast, 
as forming a component part of his nature. But to do so were 
to find its origin in the Creator Himself ; and what is this but to 
deny the existence of sin altogether ? Finally, sinlessness, in the 
practical sense, can be predicated only of a certain individual. 
That individual must be one in whose case the impossibility of 
sinning does not follow at once from a necessity of his nature ; 
who, in other words, is susceptible of being tempted. On the 
other hand, he must be one whom we may believe endowed with 
an integrity of moral nature, by means of which the possibility of 
not sinning is his. In a case where both these conditions are ful- 
filled, the development of a life altogether pure and holy is con- 
ceivable : a life it would be which we should have to regard as at 
once typically perfect— raised far above everything which history 
tells us of, and, at the same time, as truly human ; and this is 
what we hold the moral character and life of Jesus to have been. 

In proceeding, then, to establish this assertion, we must pre- 
mise that it is necessary to leave altogether out of view the con- 
sideration, as to how far it can be affirmed, from a dogmatical or 
speculative standing-point, that sinfulness or actual transgression 
in Christ is a priori inconceivable. Let us rather dwell altogether 

1 James i. 13. ©sof v.nueu.<rTO$ i<rn kcckuv. 



OF SINLESSNESS. 



upon the human and historical appearance of Christ, and confine 
ourselves accordingly to the task of making good the following po- 
sition : — The possibility of sin did indeed exist in the case of Jesus, 
but this possibility never became actual fact ; sin was ever foreign 
to Him and far from Him, outwardly as well as inwardly ; was 
ever absolutely excluded by virtue of the moral power He pos- 
sessed in highest purity and fulness, which in all circumstances 
proved itself victorious. We are entitled to view the matter in this 
light by the consideration, that, in the doctrine of the apostles, the 
perfect manhood of the Redeemer is affirmed. For, even in those 
passages in which the Godhead of Christ is most explicitly affirmed, 
there is no intention to detract anything from the perfection of 
His human nature. Now the possibility of sin can never be 
severed from human nature, created as it is and placed under 
the law of development. Nor will we be unwilling to admit the pos- 
sibility of sin in the case of Jesus, if we only rightly understand 
what is meant by this admission, and are careful to distinguish 
the possibility of sinning from a leaning or bent towards sin. 
The two things must certainly be distinguished : sin may be pos- 
sible where it does not really exist, no, not in the faintest degree ; 
but a penchant towards sin is inconsistent with sinlessness, for it 
involves a germ, a minimum of sin. This possibility of sin must, 
moreover, be presupposed ere we can conceive that Jesus could 
be tempted. The power of being tempted does not certainly in 
itself imply the existence of any evil ; for even the purest virtue, 
if it dwell in a finite nature, is liable to be tempted. Now the 
fact that Christ could be tempted, is presented to us in the Scrip- 
tures as one of the most marked features of His history. Nay 
more, it is held up as the indispensable condition of His typical 
character. And, indeed, it is only on the supposition that He 
took part in our nature not merely apparently, 1 or partially, but 

1 Docetically. Comp, Scholten Oratio cle vitando in Jesu Christi historia in- 
terpretanda Docetisrao. Traj. ad Rhen. 1840; especially p. 23 et seq. 



OF SINLESSNESS. 



49 



really and perfectly, that He can be our Pattern, Ideal, and 
Example. 1 

Now, even if we were to regard this possibility of sinning in 
Christ as a mere abstraction, on the ground that, placed in oppo- 
sition as it was to the complete moral law which was constantly 
unfolding itself within Him, it could never become anything more 
than a possibility; even were we forced to contemplate His 
moral liberty as one which never hesitated, but in every case 
made its choice with prompt and unfailing decision — which never 
deviated from its course, but at all times moved with firm and 
victorious steps towards the goal, — I say, were it so, we must 
nevertheless believe that there did exist this possibility of sin. 2 
For His nature was human — it developed and unfolded itself 
after a human fashion ; it was not % like the nature of God, holy of 
absolute necessity. Moreover, the mission of His life was of such 
a character that, in order to fulfil it, He had to combat through 
heaviest fights and sorest temptations, which at every moment 
summoned into activity His whole moral might. All that we then 
mean when we speak of the sinlessness of Jesus is, that the pos- 

1 This is particularly urged by Kant : Religion innerhalb der Grauzen der 
blossen Vernunft, 2tes St. lster Abschnitt. 

2 Compare Steudel (Glaubenslehre, p. 241). "Although the idea of Christ as 
Redeemer implies that in Him the possibility of sinning was never realised, yet 
is He the Sinless One, only in so far as it was possible for Him to sin. He 
could not have been the Redeemer if He had sinned, and as Redeemer it is 
inconceivable that He should have sinned ; but the idea of a Redeemer can 
only be realised by one who, though he might have sinned, did not sin. In a 
word, He is the Redeemer of men, not as qui non potuit peccare, but as qui 
potuit non peccare." 

Compare also Julius Miiller, Lehre von der Siinde, ii. 225 and 226. (Miiller's 
Doctrine of Sin, Clark's Foreign Theol. Library, vol. ii.) He says — " It is a 
fact of very real and very profound significance, that (as the author of the 
Epistle to the Hebrews says, ii. 10 ; v. 8, 9.) Christ had to learn obedience by 
sternest experience of life, ere He could attain to that perfection in which He 
could be to us the Author of Salvation. He had first to learn the lesson — ' ISut 
as I will, but as Thou wilt.' " 

D 



50 



OF SINLESSNESS. 



sibility of sinning which existed in Him never attained any actual 
reality, but was constantly nullified and abolished by His per- 
fect surrender of Himself to God and His will. To present in 
its significance and in its effects this actual sinlessness of Jesus, — 
this, and this alone, is our task. 

In performing this task we must, however, keep always in view 
the limits within which our argument must be conducted. 

All religious and moral truths, and, in general, all the highest 
truths — those which impart to our inner life nourishment, con- 
tentment and elevation, have in common one characteristic, which 
indeed is what constitutes their peculiar excellence, and is at the 
same time a proof of their moral character. They do not force 
themselves upon our mind with the same indubitable certainty of 
sensible objects, or with the incontrovertible evidence of logical 
proof or mathematical demonstration. Their reception into the 
mind is a matter, so to speak, of choice : we are free either to 
believe or to reject them. We are called upon to give our con- 
fidence to the reality and truth of the highest ideas, and yet 
we have no certain conviction of them, such as experience 
could impart — no proofs of them such as altogether exclude 
the conceivability of their opposites. The reason of this is, that 
those ideas affect the whole of our higher life, and to believe them 
is ever an act of a moral character. That which we call faith 
will always make good its right in this domain as deepest assur- 
ance and trust, which cannot be forced upon one, nor mathema- 
tically demonstrated ; but which, nevertheless, can be fully vin- 
dicated as something reasonable and morally necessary — as indeed 
inseparable from a true human life. 

And this is true also of the proof of the sinlessness and holi- 
ness of Jesus. 1 All exhibitions of moral greatness occupy a posi- 
tion with reference to other men which may be striven against 

1 Comp. Studien u. Kritiken, 42, 3, p. 687. De Wette : Wesen des Christ. 

Glaubens, § (j, S. 40. 



OF SINLESSNESS. 



51 



and denied. In every case it exists only for the man who, 
because he feels in himself something akin to it, is thereby 
attracted towards it, puts his trust in it, believes in it. This 
especially, where the question is not merely of deeds well-pleasing 
to the eye, but of the moral character which lies at the root of 
these. In cases where susceptibility to a high and noble purpose 
is awanting, and where there is no capacity to recognize it through 
the veil of outward appearance, and freely to confide in it, it is 
never possible so entirely to allay all doubt that no sceptical re- 
joinder can arise. All that can be done is to show that the 
grounds of belief are better and more tenable than the allegations 
of doubt. It may be shown that belief is more reasonable and 
more moral than its opposite ; that it is more worthy of man, 
more conducive to salvation. Thus then, generally, we say : the 
reality of sinless holiness is to be believed, if it is itself indisputably 
certain, and if it has the power to make others certain of it too, 
in this way, by producing effects which can only be accounted 
for on the supposition of its existence. Or, in other words : when 
a Mind of thorough sense and self-possession, and which, on other 
grounds, we are compelled to recognize as great, — I say, when 
such a Mind carries with it the assured consciousness of its holi- 
ness ; when moreover it effects changes, nay, revolutions of 
moral feeling and life in its own immediate neighbourhood, and 
generally in the whole condition of society, which can be ascribed 
only to the influences proceeding from that holiness, — we are then 
not only entitled, but bound to believe in its moral elevation and 
purity. Unquestionably much here depends on self-testimony ; 
but much also upon the proof of that testimony given through- 
out a whole life : by which we mean to say, that this self-witness 
is to be found in such a connection, and accompanied with such 
consequences, that we could not deny its validity without acting 
unreasonably, and in a manner at variance with our moral nature. 



52 



THE SINLESSNESS OF CHRIST. 



CHAPTER III. 

THE SINLESSNESS OF CHRIST. 

We have now to apply particularly to the Founder of Christi- 
anity the general remarks hitherto made* The method we shall 
adopt in so doing will be the following : — We shall begin with 
the more general traits in which the impression produced by the 
personality of Jesus is presented before us. We shall then 
endeavour to form a more definite idea of that personality. 
Having done so, we shall inquire into the import of the apostoli- 
cal utterances respecting the peculiar excellence of His moral ele- 
vation and purity. Finally, we shall contemplate more closely 
the testimony of Jesus regarding Himself. 



SECTION FIRST. 

BIBLICAL EXPRESSIONS OF A GENERAL CHARACTER. 

As we contemplate the life and moral character of Jesus, the 
wish may very naturally arise, that we had possessed some express 
and satisfactory testimony as to the impression produced by His 
appearance on men of very different ranks and dispositions ; we 
long to know what was thought of Him by friends as well as by 
foes, by believers as well as by unbelievers, by men of enthu- 
siastic temperament as well as by men of grave and sober cast. 



THE SINLESSNESS OF CHRIST. 



53 



Especially we should like to know what expressions were used 
concerning His character by His enemies and those who re- 
mained beyond the sphere of His influence. Now it is only to a 
very small extent that history satisfies this desire. All we know 
of Jesus from the testimony of heathen writers is, that He lived, 
that He suffered death by crucifixion, and that, from the earliest 
times, He received divine honours from the Christians. This 
much, indeed, is testified with indubitable authority. 1 The pas- 
sage so often quoted, in Josephus, 2 does certainly show (if we are 
to recognize the genuineness of certain expressions) that the ac- 
complished Pharisee thought of Jesus, as he did of John the 
Baptist, with respect and good-feeling. In general, we are led to 
infer from the statements of authors not Christian, that public 
opinion, even among the heathens, regarded Jesus, not only as 
one who had given occasion to the rise of the new religion, but 
as its actual Founder ; and that, from the very first, people were 
in the habit of regarding the establishment of Christianity as 
subsisting in close connection with the peculiar importance which 
His followers attached to the Person of Christ. It is never- 
theless certain that those statements teach us nothing indi- 
vidual or characteristic concerning that Person. Hence we are 
thrown entirely upon the information given us by friends and 
worshippers in the circle of the Apostles ; that is to say, upon the 
Gospels and upon the Apostolic Epistles, which we regard as the 
result of the first immediate impression produced by the Person 
of Christ. 

Within this circle we certainly meet with very characteristic 
notices of the relation in which men of the most different com- 
plexion stood to the Person of Christ, and of the way in which 

1 Compare my work, Historisch oder Mythisch. pp. 1-40. 

2 Archseol. xviii, 3, 3. The passage appears to me to be composed of por- 
tions partly authentic and partly unauthentic. Iu any case, Jesus is certainly 
mentioned by Josephus as he " who is called Christ " — Archcsol. xx. 9, 1. 



54 



THE SINLESSNESS OF CHRIST. 



they viewed Him. We find here presented to us figuratively; 
within a narrow compass, all the various spiritual and moral 
relations to the manifestation of Christ which we see subsequently 
developed in the history of prominent individuals, and of the most 
marked tendencies of society. There is blind hatred of Jesus ; 
there is haughty, self-satisfied contempt ; there is cold indiffer- 
ence and frigid scepticism. And there are the various shades 
and gradations of faith in Him and fellowship with Him ; from 
the suspicious, hesitating, or diffident approach, up to the deepest? 
most loving union with His person. All this is presented to us 
in a series of pictures which meet our eye, rich and manifold in 
forms, — not skilfully carried out it is true, or carefully filled in, 
but yet very distinct, very clear, full of life, and full of truth. 

The testimony given, both by word and deed, in the Evange- 
lical records and Apostolical Epistles by men of very different 
ways of thinking concerning Jesus is this : in the first place, 
that He was a man of peculiar moral elevation ; and again, that 
He was a pure, sinless, and holy man. 

The first of these (briefly to mention the leading traits) is ex- 
pressed even in the hatred of the enemies of Jesus, who sought 
in vain to cast a stain of reproach upon the purity of His walk ; 
and in the conduct of those who, although in other respects 
indifferent to Him, were nevertheless irresistibly impressed with 
the dignity of His character. The worldly-minded judge of 
Jesus, who was a man by no means very susceptible of what is 
high and noble, nay, who was even a hard and cruel man, 1 felt 
constrained solemnly to recognize the innocence of the perse- 
cuted Jesus. And Pilate's wife, who, we may suppose, was more 
impressible than he, yet doubtless might be unconcerned enough 
what the fate of a Jewish teacher might be, was so deeply con- 

1 For a description of the character of Pilate, besides that given in the evan- 
gelical history, the reader is referred to the passage in Philo, de legat. ad 
Caj. ? t. ii. p. 590, ed. Mang. 



THE SINLESSNESS OF CHRIST. 



55 



vinced of the purity and blainelessness of Christ, that the thought 
of her husband imbruing his hands in the blood of that Right- 
eous Man 1 haunted her even in sleep, and gave her no rest. A 
Roman warrior, who commanded the guard at the cross, was so 
overpowered by the impression that the Crucified made upon 
him, that he broke forth in words of deepest reverence : " Truly 
this is a righteous man, this was the Son of God." 2 And the 
malefactor who was crucified along with Him, moved by His 
dying look, was made strong to give his whole confidence to His 
Person, and to apprehend the joy of a better life. 3 

There is another witness to be mentioned here : a man be- 
longing to the circle of Christ's most intimate and chosen fol- 
lowers. The testimony which apostolical tradition makes him 
lay down to the purity and innocence of Jesus, is not in words 
but in act ; it is indirect, but is on that account all the more 
remarkable. We allude to the betrayer of our Lord — to Judas 
Iscariot. Long and most confidential intercourse had given him 
the most intimate knowledge of his Master ; hence, if he could 
have found anything reproachable in His life, he would without 
doubt have brought it forward, in order to quiet his conscience 
in the view of the consequences of his treachery, and to palliate 
his crime. Rut he could find nothing : he was forced to make 
the confession that the blood he had betrayed was innocent 
blood; 4 and so heavy did the thought of his dark deed press 
upon his soul, that he went and killed himself. In after-times 
other blood-witnesses went willingly to death for Christ; but 
this man must die against his will, that by his death of despair 

1 Matt, xxvii. 19, especially the words : ^Mv trot jcx) r£ hzetla \zktv&* 

2 Whether or not the centurion's words are to be taken in a properly Chris- 
tian sense. Luke xxiii. 47 ; Matthew xxvii. 54. [According to Matthew, his 
words were : Truly this was the Son of God,«x»j0»$ ©sou vw $ros ; according" 

to Luke, evras o avQoaxos ovres "hixxtos 'Tv.] 

3 Luke xxiii. 40, etc. 

* xlpx xS-uoy. Matt, xxvii. 4. 



56 



THE SINLESSNESS OF CHRIST. 



he might testify to the greatness of the Crucified, as those bore 
witness for Him by their death of faith and love. 

In the passages just referred to, it is only to the moral dignity 
and elevation of Christ that testimony is borne. With regard to 
the second particular noted above, His sinless holiness, we find it 
also spoken of with decided assurance in many expressions of the 
apostles and apostolic men. Their testimony concerning Christ is 
perfectly harmonious ; and what they say of Him points to some- 
thing about Him very peculiar and unique. They call Him the 
Holy One and the Just. (Acts iii. 14, viii. 25, xxii. 14 ; 1 Peter 
iii. 18 ; 1 John ii. 1, 29, iii. 7 ; Heb. iv. 15 ; compare also 1 
Tim. iii. 16.) He is tempted in all things like as we are, yet 
without sin. They speak of Him, as of one who is our highest 
Example, because He did no sin, neither was guile found in His 
mouth (1 Peter ii. 21) ; as the pure and spotless Lamb (1 Peter 
i. 19) ; as the true High Priest, holy, harmless, undefiled, sepa- 
rate from sinners, and made higher than the heavens ; who there- 
fore needs not, like the other high priests, to olfer up sacrifice 
for His own sins (Heb. vii. 2/], 27) ; but who, just because in Him 
was no sin, was able to take away our sins, 1 (2 Cor. v. 21.) 

Without this conviction of His spotless holiness the apostles 
had never been able to recognize in Jesus what they actually saw 
in Him, viz., not only the most exalted of the prophets, but the 
Messiah Himself, anointed with the entire fulness of the Divine 
Spirit ; 2 the Founder of the perfect Kingdom of God, whose 

1 1 John iii. 5. On which compare Liicke's Commentary. 

3 The Old Testament idea of the Messiah implied some reference to the idea 
of sinlessness. This was natural. A true Servant of God, a Representative of 
the All-holy in the Theocracy the Messiah could be, only if He was in all re- 
spects obedient to the Divine Will, and entirely free from sin and guilt. The 
most important single passage of the Old Testament in this connection, (which 
is quoted by St Peter, 1 Peter ii. 22) is Isaiah liii. 9 : " He had done no violence, 
neither was any deceit in His mouth." (See Umbreifs exposition of this passage 
in his " Servant of God." Hamburg, 1340, S. 56-60.) 



THE SINLESSNESS OF CHRIST. 



57 



Lawgiver and King He Himself should be ; the Redeemer from 
sin ; the Image of the invisible God ; the only Good and Holy 
One. Now the apostles, who everywhere draw so clear a line of 
demarcation between good and evil, could see an image of God, a 
living expression of that Divine nature, of whose awful holiness 
they have so deep a feeling, only in One with whose moral purity 
they are thoroughly penetrated. That only a personality of 
such a character could by them be recognized as a Redeemer 
from sin, is a statement which is self-evident, and scarcely needs 
the corroboration of their express statements, (Heb. vii. 26, 27.) 

The expressions quoted hitherto are only of a very general 
character, it is true. What is spoken of is simply the moral 
dignity and purity of Jesus, whether historically or didactically 
contemplated. This general character of these dicta of Scrip- 
ture, more or less destitute as they are of individuality, might 
tempt us to entertain the thought, that the expressions we have 
here to do with do not give the impression produced by a real 
life, but have arisen in the course of dogmatical reflection ; that 
they are, in a word, more the results of reasoning than the 
simple utterance of what had been actually experienced. One 
might be led to this conclusion in this way : The believers on 
Christ were convinced of His Messianic and saving character ; 
once that was the case, they would attribute to Him the qualities 
which they regarded as natural, or essentially belonging, to that 
character ; and to it necessarily belonged the quality of sin- 
less holiness. This explanation were, however, far from satisfac- 
tory. It would still leave us in the dark with reference to one 
very important circumstance, viz., as to how faith in Jesus as 
Messiah and Redeemer could come to exist at all, (forming itself, 
as it must have done, by slow degrees, and growing up from a 
thousand separate circumstances,) if He did not in fact produce 
upon those with whom He came in contact the impression of a 
character perfectly pure and unstained by sin. Besides, as we 



58 



THE SXNLESSNESS OF CHRIST. 



shall afterwards see, the idea of sinlessness was then by no means 
so very common, or so generally understood, that it could at once 
be applied to Jesus ; on the contrary, it is with the historical 
appearance of Jesus Himself that we see for the first time this 
idea presenting itself in a clear light before the consciousness of 
men. But especially the following consideration demands our 
notice. The account with which the apostles present us of Jesus, 
is by no means confined to general statements concerning Him. 
What they give us is a rich and full history of His life and cha- 
racter. What they hold up to us is a portrait of our Lord, per- 
fect in outline and in detail. By this the more general expressions 
of which we have spoken receive their concrete completion, and 
their living confirmation. And this is all the more the case, be- 
cause in the way in which the apostolical writers hand down to 
us this portrait of Christ, there is no trace of forethought and 
design ; on the contrary, everything bears the aspect of the most 
artless simplicity, which presents to us only isolated intimations 
and individual traits, — intimations, however, and traits, such as 
naturally unite to form one perfectly harmonious and very glorious 
whole. 



SECTION SECOND. 

THE GOSPEL-PORTRAITURE OF JESUS. 

The task we have to perform, then is to gather together into 
one whole the different lineaments of the portrait of Jesus which 
lie scattered up and down the pages of the Gospel-narrative. 
The task is at all times replete with difficulty : but it is one not- 
withstanding, which Christian science must ever and anon be pre- 
pared to undertake. 

The impression which the evangelical representation of our Sa- 
viour produces, is one of moral greatness : that it is so, all, almost 



THE SINLESSNESS OF CHRIST. 



59 



without exception, have admitted. Even opponents of all posi- 
tive Christianity whatever acknowledge this, and speak with high 
enthusiasm of His greatness. As certain is it, that the greatness 
which we see before us here is of a kind entirely new, which has 
never before existed : and if our eye has been accustomed to look 
solely on the prominent figures of ante -Christian times before it 
came to rest on Him, it must first be taught to look quite away 
from those, ere it will be able to perceive what is peculiar in the 
dignity of Christ. In the realm of heathen antiquity we find 
that, wherever human greatness was recognized, it arose in every 
case from the superiority of the gifted soul to those that were 
less gifted. Their ascendancy was due to transcendent power. 1 
Splendid achievements, noble deeds, whether in the domain of 
thought and of art, or in that of action, declared and attested the 
Great Man. What gave him his importance and his position 
was his connection with the genius of his nation, whereof he 
was himself the concentrated expression. Within the province of 
the Old Testament, we find the state of matters somewhat diffe- 
rent. There, greatness arises not from human might, is not the 
offspring of human power, but is the work of the Divine Spirit. 
And yet the difference in other respects is not so great : for here 
too greatness displays itself in special, extraordinary deeds of 
might, in great achievements of power to legislate or to rule, in 
actions of heroic glory or utterances of prophetic fire. These 
manifestations of greatness may, to a certain extent, be viewed 
apart from the individual who thus distinguishes himself : and 

1 1 will here content myself with directing attention to two sayings, the one 
of an ancient, the other of a modern, poet. Homer says : " Ever to lead in the 
van, and to excel over others ;" and in these words he expresses very markedly 
one of the main-springs of ancient greatness. Similar in significance, but re- 
garding the matter from a different point of view, are the words of Schiller : 
" Grosser Thaten herrliche Vollbringer stiegen zur Unsterblichkeit ^nan." 
("The glorious achievers of mighty deeds ascended to the heights of immor- 
tality.") 



THE SINLESSNESS OF CHRIST. 



moreover, among the Jews as among the Greeks, even the most 
exalted actions are performed within the clearly-drawn limits of 
their own nationality. Now, when we speak of greatness in re- 
lation to Jesus, we must abstract ourselves from all such consi- 
derations as these ; in Him and with Him an altogether new idea 
of greatness has come into the world. He is the full and perfect 
type of what the Scriptures call great " before God." 1 

What strikes us first of all, in comparing the greatness of J esus 
with that of the heroes of antiquity, is, that the source of His 
greatness is not His ascending but His condescending, not rising 
above men, but letting Himself sink beneath them. Hence His 
greatness is a silent greatness. We do not rest this assertion on 
the fact that Christ's entry into life at all, involved self-renuncia- 
tion : for we are seeking at present to contemplate Jesus solely 
in His human aspect. But even confining our view to this, it is 
not difficult to see that the whole life of the Son of Man upon 
the earth had this one end in view : to descend to the mean and 
the despised ; to seek the lost ; not to let Himself be ministered 
unto, but to minister. His greatness was unostentatious, nay, it 
ever sought to veil itself in humility. He turned aside in every 
case from worldly honour, and never sought His own glory : and 
in nothing was the strength of His will more manifested than in 
His having no will of His own ; nor the force of His character 
more strikingly displayed than in the self-abnegation with which 
He committed Himself entirely to God, content to receive all 
from Him. His soul was still before God, possessed in quietness t 
and His whole walk, especially in that silent testimony He gave 
for the truth when He endured in silence the deepest anguish, was 
an expression of the perfect self-possession of His soul in God. 

Repose in greatness can exist only where the inmost, deepest 
nature is great. To be calmly, serenely great, implies that the 

1 Luke i. 15, 32. " For He shall be great in the sight of the Lord." " He 
shall be great, and shall be called the Son of the Highest." 



THE SINLESSNESS OF CHRIST. 



61 



greatness is no merely external accident, something adventitious 
or unreal, but that it has its seat in the depths of one's being. 
Jesus was great in the inward man, and outwardly He could be 
great only in so far as the external was a pure and perfect expres- 
sion of what was written. In His case, the relation between outer 
and inner greatness is not of such a character, that His Person 
first was made great by brilliant deeds. But before anything 
else, His character, which had expanded in seclusion from the 
world, was established in its own peculiar beauty and excellence ; 
He was first penetrated with the consciousness that He bore in 
Himself the undeveloped powers of the new Kingdom of God, and 
this it was that gave to all He did an import and a dignity all 
its own. If we measure the work of Jesus according to the com- 
mon standard, there was nothing in it to move the world and 
subdue the minds of men. He went through life performing 
human works of restoring love, and dispensing words of healing; 
and at last He offered Himself up upon the cross in peace. 
True : but if, notwithstanding this, He has effected a metamor- 
phosis of the world, in comparison with which the greatest of re- 
volutions sinks into insignificance ; if He has proved a conquerer 
of souls, as before Him and after Him humanity has known no 
other : we must indeed, in endeavouring to understand those mar- 
vellous results, take into account very specially His works and 
words. But not for their own sake alone, or viewed apart from 
His character. They must be considered chiefly because all 
that He did and said, was the revelation of an inner life such as 
humanity had not as yet disclosed, the manifestation of a Person- 
ality which impressed those who beheld it with a deep feeling of 
how incomparably excellent it was. And this impression, we may 
believe, was not for them incompatible with the belief that pos- 
sibly others may have performed similar or even greater works 
than those which Jesus had performed. 1 

1 Jesus Himself empowered His disciples to do similar and even greater 



THE SINLESSNESS OF CHEIST. 



If we now inquire what there was peculiar about this Person- 
ality, we find that here the original deseribers of it do not leave 
us an instant in doubt : the peculiarity was to be found in the 
province of religion and morality, religion and morality in indis- 
soluble union. The effects that were caused by the manifesta- 
tion of Jesus, and which, in the further progress of His religion, 
began to unfold themselves, extended to the domain of society 
and of statecraft, to science and to art ; but He Himself and 
what He was, what he immediately said and did, belongs to piety 
and to morality. 1 Or, to put this somewhat more definitely : 
That Jesus, whom the Evangelists describe, was not a religious 
and moral man among other things, as well as something else ; 
no, He was a religious and moral Personality in the highest sense 
of the term. His very calling He found in realising the true re- 
lation to God and the true relation to man, as determined by God, 
and viewed in the light of God ; and in the fulfilment of this call- 
ing His whole life was spent, and there was no space left for 
ought besides. 2 That for which Jesus lived was the whole human 
race. For, however difficult in other respects their destination 
may be, it is true alike of all men that their life must hold the 

works than His own : Verily, verily, I say unto you, he that believeth on Me, 
the works that I do; shall he do also ; and greater works than these shall he do, 
because I go to My Father, (John xiv. 12.) 

Notwithstanding this, the disciples were doubtless distinctly aware that they 
would never, as individuals, stand on a level with Him. Neither in character 
nor in outward life could they expect to be ever altogether like Him. 

2 It might appear at first sight that Jesus had no special calling, because 
His labours were not confined to one particular department of human activity. 
But, for one thing, this supposition would be at variance with Scripture, 
which specially ascribes to Him an lvro\%v t received from His Father, a specific 
given Him to do, a mission to accomplish, a life-task to perform. And 
if we look more closely into the subject, the very appearance of this will vanish. 
Consider. Was not the calling of all callings His? That is, His vocation was 
that which by being accomplished should impart to every individual human 
vocation, whether great or insignificant, a sure foundation — a worthy object — 
an exalted destination. For He was to give to human life itself a sure resting- 



THE SINLESSNESS OF CHKIST. 



63 



true position with regard to God on the one hand, and humanity 
on the other. Hence, since Jesus has shown Himself great in 
this domain, His greatness transcends everything that is merely 
particular and individual. 'Tis not the greatness of the lawgiver 
or of the hero, the greatness of the thinker or of the artist ; nor 
is it the greatness in which the spirit of one single nation is con- 
centrated ; not a broken fragment, however brilliant,— no, it is a 
perfect mirror of humanity. It is a greatness which transcends 
all peculiarities, all fragmentariness — the greatness of the true 
and universal Human, that here lays claim to universal acknow- 
ledgment. 

But if we would vividly realize the Personality of Jesus, we 
must direct our attention to something more definite than these 
general considerations. But let us proceed in a right way, The 
Evangelists, in recording the character of Jesus, present us with 
a series of separate traits in which we cannot fail to see how keen 
was the glance of His spiritual eye, how profound His nature, how 
world-embracing His thought. These mirror back to us the jus- 
tice and generosity, the meekness and majesty, the truth and the 
faithfulness of His character, — in a word, whatever in Him was 
lovely and of good report. But it is at the same time very evi- 
dent, that they do not seek to impress upon us this or that quality, 
viewed apart from the rest, as His peculiar prerogative or claim 
to distinction. They view all as the natural and necessary ex- 
pression of His character considered as a whole : His life was 
manifested thus ; and it could not but be thus manifested. This 
is true especially of the Gospel of St John, who expressly 
says, that Jesus had manifested not this or that virtue or ex- 
cellence, but — the Life, (John i. 4.) Following the method of 

place in God, and a continuaDce in the sight of God: He was to become the 
Author and Finisher of faith, the Founder of the Kingdom of God in humanity. 
— Schoeberlein, Grundlehren des Heils, S. 62. Martensen, Christliche Dog- 
matik, S 142, S. 319. 



64 



THE SINLESSNESS OF CHRIST. 



the Evangelists, we shall call attention to some special traits, 
for it is only from these that the picture obtains its reality and 
living power ; but we must do this always in such a way, that 
while we examine the lineaments in detail, the view of the whole 
portrait shall ever be present to our eye. 

What strikes one very forcibly in contemplating the person- 
ality of Christ is, the harmony which pervaded His whole life, 
and the atmosphere of peace in which He dwelt, and which flowed 
around Him upon all who came within the circle of His blessed 
influence. The impression made on us by the appearance of Christ 
is that of perfect repose, calm self-possession, serene self-reliance. 
But the calm of Jesus was not the stillness of torpidity or 
the silence of the ice-bound Arctic Seas. It was a repose con- 
sistent with a rich, deep, inexhaustible enthusiasm. It was not 
the lofty ecstasy of an Isaiah or an Ezekiel, nor the might and 
energy of Moses, which distinguished Him. On the contrary, 
His nature was all serenity and gentleness. The sacred fire which 
glowed in the breasts of the ancient prophets, was transformed in 
Him into a soft but never-failing presence of the creating breath 
of the Spirit. If we might here make use of a figure borrowed 
from the Old Testament Scriptures, we should say, that the mani- 
festation of Jesus is not the storm which splits up rocks of ada- 
mant, not the shattering earthquake or the devouring flame, but 
rather it resembles the still, small voice, which discovered to the 
Prophet Elijah the presence of the Lord. 1 Constantly, without 
intermission or disturbance, Jesus moved in an atmosphere of 
spiritual air as in the natural element of His life : He was an 
habitual denizen of that pure supernal region to which other men 
may rise only in isolated hours of high communion. His march 
j was like that of the sun in a cloudless sky, ever holding with un- 
deviating constancy its heavenly journey. His words were ever 

1 1 Kings xix. 8-15. Compare J. von Muller, Universal History, book ix. 
chapter 6. 



THE SINLESSNESS OF CHRIST. 



65 



full of light, and His works of reviving life. There was in His 
words a tenderness and a fervour that went straight to the heart ; 
but never any vehement outburst or passionate declamation. 
Nothing was done by Him thoughtlessly or without a purpose : 
everything which He began was accomplished with assurance, 
and infallibly attained His object. When called on to act with 
severity, to denounce and to chastise, it was not personal irrita- 
tion that moved Him, but the holy wrath of love, — a love which, 
in its hatred to the sin, ceased not to love in the sinner the 
man who may be redeemed. In these cases, He ever kept His 
soul in full self-possession. So too, when placed in the most 
trying circumstances of His life, he maintained at all times 
mental repose and perfect self-control. Hence the peace which 
evermore surrounded Him, which flowed forth from Him upon 
all within His circle who were susceptible of its benign influence. 
For when He says (John xiv. 27), " Peace I leave with you ; My 
peace I give unto you," it was the peace which dwelt in His own 
calm, harmonious soul that He gave. 

But it is not to be thought that this harmony and peace which 
reigned in the character of Jesus, was the result of a mingling or 
a sinking of His powers and activities, such as prevented them 
from coming into full operation. That would not be the har- 
mony of greatness, but the harmony of mediocrity. The harmony 
of greatness can exist only in a character which is strong : where 
a rich, deep life wells up, and opposites blend together in unison. 

And this is eminently the case with Jesus. Jesus comes to send 
a sword as well as to send peace ; He is called with equal right 
the Lion of the Tribe of Judah, and the Lamb who bears the 
world's sins. The harmoniousness of being which we mark in 
Him, arises from the richest fulness of the spirit and of the heart. 
The contrasts of which it is the result, are mental characteristics 
such as seem to preclude each other in other men ; powers are 
combined in Him which in other men are found apart : these work 

E 



66 



THE SINLESSNESS OF CHRIST. 



side by side in Him with full energy, and are united together so 
as to form one glorious whole. In a manner entirely new and 
wonderful, the individual and the universally human are blended 
together in Him, and pervade each other. Here are manly inde- 
pendence and resignation ; doing and enduring are here ; here, 
sublime majesty and humble condescension. None of all these 
traits can we leave out of view, if we would contemplate His full 
portrait. 

Let us then first glance at the relation of the Individual to 
the Human in the Person of Jesus. 

As a man, Jesus is placed under the laws to which human 
nature is subject : He is under the conditions of family and race, 
has certain endowments of mind and a certain mental disposition, 
belongs to a certain nation and time. But He was not in any 
way fettered by these particular relations, although He abun- 
dantly fulfilled every duty they imposed upon Him ; they were 
rather a means of which He made use to manifest what is truly 
human. In virtue of that indomitable strength of will which He 
preserved, we are entitled to call Him a Man in the fullest sense 
of the word : but we must not therefore say that His peculiar 
characteristic was manliness ; for He shows at the same time 
all the gentleness, purity, and tenderness of the female character. 
We find Him possessed of high mental endowments ; but we 
should err were we on this account to characterize Him as pre- 
eminently acute or profound, spirituel or imaginative : because, 
although we trace in Him the evidence of the possession of all 
these gifts, still none of them was the principal endowment of 
His mind. No less do we perceive in Him different moods of 
mind and changes of disposition : now He is serene and free from 
care ; now He is deeply serious, or depressed and sad ; now again 
He is equanimous, unperturbed, and calm: at one time His 
spirit rises in holy joy ; at another, it sinks in sorrow and regret. 
But we would regard it as unseemly, were we to ascribe to Him 



THE SINLESSNESS OF CHRIST. 



67 



a peculiar temperament, in the ordinary interpretation of the 
term : for everything that is recorded of Him conveys the impres- 
sion of a mind whose different tempers were happily commingled, 
and whose emotions varied in a manner entirely natural. 1 

But this interpenetration of the Particular and the General, 
shows itself especially in the position which Jesus held towards 
His family and His nation. Here we see, in a very peculiar way, 
how the universal spirit of humanity was made to transfuse the 
given form in the individual. He fulfilled every duty which His 
position as a member of His family required : especially, He pre- 
served up to the last hour of His life the tenderest filial love. 
But at the same time He subordinated to the Divine purposes 
everything that pertained to the family circle, making the indivi- 
dual and family interests give place to those that were of a higher 
and universal nature. (John ii. 4 ; Mark iii. 32-35 ; Luke xi. 
27, 28.) As the Founder of a Kingdom of God upon earth, He 
regarded every one who did the will of God as His mother, and 
sister, and brother. In this sense, too, He required that every 
member of that kingdom should be willing to sever even the 
closest family bonds, if they should form an obstacle in the way 
of his following his only Lord and Master. In like manner, 
Jesus did not cease to be a subject of His nation. He per- 
formed with conscientious faithfulness all the Divine appoint- 
ments which had been prescribed to His people, and submitted 
Himself even to human customs when praiseworthy and right. 
In His labours He observed the requirements and the forms of 
the spirit of His people, and adapted Himself most cordially and 
entirely to the circumstances of that time and country. But 
while He did this, there was in His demeanour not a shade of 
those peculiarities which mark, to his disadvantage, the Jew as 
such : on the contrary, everything national, of which He makes 

1 For admirable observations on this subject, compare Martensen's Christ- 
liche Dogmatik, § 141, Seite 314-318. 



68 



THE SINLESSNESS OF CHRIST. 



free use, was made by Him an instrument and a means of present- 
ing in a real form what appertains to all humanity in every age 
and in every nation. 

This is one of the principal characteristics by which Jesus is 
distinguished from all the great spirits of antiquity, even the 
greatest of them. However profound in thought those men may 
have been, however comprehensive in action, they still bear, all 
I of them, the impress of their own peculiar nationality, they still 
mirror back the age in which they lived : and this is true, not 
only of their life in its outward form, but also of their inmost and 
deepest nature. Even Socrates knew no higher virtue than a 
free obedience to the law of his country, and a faithful observ- 
ance of the customs of the fathers. Their noblest enthusiasm 
was evoked by the interests of their fatherland, and the highest 
deed they could achieve was to die for it. They grew out of the 
spirit of their people and their time ; and so, too, the effect they 
wrought on age and nation was determined by the measure in 
which they gave that spirit a fitting and noble expression. 

Not one among the ancients rises above the limits of his own 
nationality to such a degree as Socrates : he himself wished to 
be regarded not as a Grecian merely, but as a Cosmopolitan. 1 
And yet even Socrates was essentially Greek : his whole charac- 
ter, his moral nature not excepted, had unmistakeably a Greek 
impress, and stood in immediate relation to the manners and 
customs of his country. 2 And this holds good also of the piety 
of Socrates, which, notwithstanding its peculiar nature, had still 
for its basis the national traditions, and in no sense possessed the 
universal character of Christianity. 

Jesus was surpassed by no hero of antiquity, in power of ac- 
tion, and in self-sacrifice : but the principle which determined 

1 Socrates quidem cum rogaretur, cuiatem se esse diceret, Mundanum, inquit, 
totius enim mundi se incolam et civera arbitrabatur. — Cicero, Tusc. Qucest. v. 37. 

2 Ritter, Geschichte der Philosophic, ii. 35 and 38. 



THE SINLESSNESS OF CHRIST. 



69 



and guided His whole life, was not in His case merely national, 
it was intensely human : it did not belong merely to time, but to 
eternity. He was the first to present to us a full and perfect 
type of humanity, which unfolded itself from the depths of His 
Nature replete with Deity. If this type was presented in con- 
nection with a particular nation, (as it must have been,) it never- 
theless far transcended the narrow limits of any separate nation- 
ality. He was the realization of the idea of humanity; 1 and 
thus He was the first who, setting out from His own people, was 
not confined in His working within its limits. He embraced the 
whole human race in the circle of His love, and for it He sought 
to live and dared to die. He who thus portrayed humanity as 
a living whole — as one body, through which the powers of a 
Divine life streamed, has become the Founder of the kingdom of 
God. And this He could become only under two conditions : I 
On the one hand, He must recognize in a spirit of love the infi- 
nite value of every individual human soul, and He must enter in 
a spirit of devotion into all the divinely-appointed distinctions 
in human life. On the other hand, at the same time He must 
rise above everything particular, whether as existing in indivi- 
duals, or in his family, tribe, or nation. He must comprehend 
all mankind in the folds of His heart : He must elevate every 
characteristic to something universally true, by imparting to it 
the spirit of His high and universal nature. 

Thus was the antithesis between the individual and the univer- 
sally-human abolished in the Person of Jesus, who for the first 
time made manifest how one, who was characterized by so strong 
an individuality, could at the same time be a universal Man, a Man 
for all times and races, the Archetype and Ideal of Humanity. 
But not only in this are qualities which to us appear so opposite 
proved to be congruent, and are actually exhibited in unison in 1 

1 Compare Hundeshagen : On the Nature and Historical Development of the 
Idea of Humanity, Heidelberg, 1852, especially pp. 13-21. 



70 



THE SINLESSNESS OF CHRIST. 



the Person of Jesus : other properties which seem as radically 
distinct are combined in Him. Take, for instance, the contra- 
ries of self-dependence and resignation, of action and endurance, 
which in Jesus transfuse and permeate each other, and combine 
in fullest harmony. It is doubtless true that we find these op- 
posites united, to some extent, in all human development, when it 
is not, morally speaking, altogether abnormal : self-dependence 
and resignation, power to do and capacity to endure. But we 
shall invariably find it to be the case, that either the one or the 
other has the preponderance. The man who is pre-eminent in 
self-dependence and energy, is not equally great in resignation 
and endurance : the active, energetic, independent man, is gene- 
rally impatient to bear, and prone, under calamitous visitations, 
to chafe the bit of destiny. And he who is most distinguished 
by the grace of resignation and patient endurance, is generally 
deficient in action and in self-reliance. Now these opposite 
qualities of independence and energy on the one hand, and resig- 
nation and endurance on the other, meet together in the Person 
of Jesus. His self-reliance is maintained even in the most com- 
plete resignation : His resignation has its foundation in true self- 
reliance. His actions, which were never unmixed with suffering, 
disclose the most sublime capacity to endure : and His sufferings, 
which He entered upon unconstrained, and of His own free 
choice, reveal the purest and noblest strength of character. 

Jesus was completely independent, self-reliant. It is true that 
He who had not where to lay His head, required, in His outward 
life, the aids and assistance of Friendship : while, for His inner 
life, He stood in need of the love of His own. He drew John 
nearer to His heart than the rest. He rejoiced in the submission 
of the woman that was a sinner. He desired " heartily" to eat 
the Passover with His disciples. He wanted them to be near 
Him, and to sympathize and watch with Him in His last soul- 
agony. But this need of the sympathy of others, which was 



THE SINLESSNESS OF CHRIST. 



71 



purely a human want, never became in Him dependence upon 
others. He could say to the apostles : Ye have not chosen Me, 
but I have chosen you. Ye call me Master and Lord, and ye do 
well, for so I am. Nor did He merely say this ; He ever acted 
upon it. For always, in relation to everything that was highest. 
He appeared not in the character of one who received, but as 
one] who gave ; and indeed it was He who, Himself entirely 
free, was the first to make His followers partakers of true free- 
dom. In His most heavy and decisive trials, He relied upon 
Himself alone. In G ethsemane, where the disciples slept,— on the 
Cross, when they forsook Him, the independence and dignity of 
the Shepherd was revealed, who remained unmoved when His 
flock was scattered. In order to attain to the dominion which 
He exercised, He did not, like others, require to make use of 
means external to Himself : on the contrary, every agency by 
which He worked was within Himself ; and in this sense one may 
apply to Him the words of the prophet : " The government is 
upon His shoulders." But in this self-reliance in which Jesus, 
as altogether free and altogether holy, stood out from the world 
whose sin He so deeply felt, He nevertheless did not show Him- 
self exclusive and unsympathizing towards the sinful and the 
guilty. On the contrary, it was just as one wholly self-dependent 
that He gave Himself without reserve to the world : as He who 
had the life in Himself; who lived not for Himself, but for 
others. And yet nothing was foreign to Him. We read that 
He was grieved for the people — He called to Him the weary and 
heavy-laden — He preached the Gospel to the poor ; — His maxim 
was, to restore the bruised reed, and to revive the smoking flax. 
His whole life was one great act of self-sacrifice, consummated 
by His death upon the Cross. This self- reliance and resignation 
possessed in Him a truly ethical character : for the former was 
the independence of Love, which gave itself to promote the wel- 
fare of others ; and the latter was the resignation of a nature 



72 



THE SINLESSNESS OF CHRIST. 



entirely self-possessed, and its principle was one unbroken act of 
voluntary self-abnegation. The two are not, however, to be 
viewed apart from each other, for they form in the character of 
Jesus a perfect and harmonious whole. 

Similar to this is the relation between doing and suffering in 
the life of Christ. Action and endurance were united at every 
period of His life. Hence there was displayed by Him, at all 
times, a sublime and heroic energy, and a calm, patient endur- 
ance : these combined to form a character absolutely unlike any 
other. The life of Jesus appears, in the first instance, to have 
been essentially one of action, at least in so far as it meets the 
public eye. He went about doing good : He worked while it was 
day, were His words ; and He himself comprehends everything 
that proceeded from Him in that " work" which was given Him by 
the Father to do. In accomplishing this work, His will was con- 
stantly and invariably directed towards one end; and in every 
position into which He enters we see that ruling power by 
which great souls like His, conscious of the truth, exercise an 
influence on all susceptible minds which seems almost magical. 
At the same time, we must not overlook the fact, that the actual 
work of Christ was ever accompanied by suffering. His very 
entrance upon the work prescribed to Him by God, arose from a 
sympathy with sinful humanity ; and this sympathy, which was 
never for a moment absent from His spirit, was the cause of that 
peculiar vein of melancholy which ran through His whole nature. 
Then, the accomplishment of His work involved an incessant 
conflict with sin, experienced at every step ; its assaults causing 
Him not only the keenest physical sufferings, and at last the 
painful death of the Cross, but also the deeper sorrows of the 
soul, at the thought that all His trials were inflicted by those He 
came to save. And throughout all this suffering, which, as 
man, He felt most keenly, He possessed His soul in unwearied 
patience, never murmuring or complaining, but in all things com-r 



THE SINLESSNESS OF CHRIST. 



73 



mitting Himself to God, as His servant, who must be made per- 
fect by suffering. Thus all He did was at the same time so 
much endured ; His actions were His sufferings too. And not 
less true is it, that His sufferings were also actions, what He en- 
dured was at the same time the work which He had to do. For 
although all that He suffered came to Him from without, still it 
did not remain without Him as it were, something external to 
Himself; because He entered upon every trial by voluntary choice, 
with the fullest consciousness that He was submitting Himself to 
a Divine appointment, and w T ith full acquiescence in the Divine 
will. In this sense, His passion and His death are to be regarded 
as the noblest action of His life. Thus, at every step of the life 
of Jesus, action and suffering, heroic power to do and to endure, j 
act and re-act upon each other, permeating and transfusing one 
another, never existing apart, but ever in combination : and it is 
in this view that His character presents that inward harmony 
which made men see in Him, as distinguished from a sinful world, 
the Righteous and Holy One. 

Then again, a life like that could present no other picture but 
one of Humility and of Majesty : and indeed both these features, 
in rare combination, characterized the Man Christ Jesus. Truly 
might Jesus say of Himself : " I am meek and lowly in heart." 
His whole life, we have seen, was one connected act of self-abne- 
gation, and so too was it one unbroken act of self-abasement. 
At its very close the most touching instance of humble, minister- 
ing love is recorded of Him, when, in the full consciousness of 
His Divine origin and the Divine resting-place whither He was 
going — knowing that He was come from God, and went to 
God, — He condescended to wash His disciples' feet. By this 
consummating act of love He bore testimony to the truth, that 
He regarded the perfection of life as consisting in the service of 
love. And yet, from beneath the covering of abasement and 
reproach which veiled His glory for a season, there shone forth 



74 



THE SXNLESSNESS OF CHRIST. 



at all times the light of a kingly soul : and His words, as well as 
His actions, express an inner consciousness which we must either 
not understand at all, or understand as the expression of a con- 
sciousness of infinite superiority — of incomparable dignity of cha- 
racter. Many a word of majesty fell from the lips of Jesus, 
from that first exclamation in the school at Nazareth — " This 
day is this Scripture fulfilled in your ears" (Luke iv. 16) — to 
that sublime testimony before the worldly-minded judge (John 
xviii. 37) : "I am a King. To this end was I born, and am 
come into the world, to bear witness of the Truth !" How mighty 
was the influence of the majesty of His personal appearance, and 
how universally was that influence felt ! The fallen disciple felt 
it, and so did the caitiffs sent to arrest Him in the garden : the ex- 
cited accusers who sought to have Him stoned, confessed its silent 
power ; and so, too, did the malefactor, who even upon the Cross 
recognized in his fellow-sufferer his Deliverer and his King. And 
here, as before, majesty and humility do not exist apart from one 
another : they are, on the contrary, in and with each other. The 
Majesty of Jesus consisted in this, that His high soul bowed in 
deep humility before God : and the perfect Humility of Jesus 
consisted in this, that it was the humility not of the sinner who, 
oppressed by a sense of utter unworthiness, abases himself before 
God, but that of one who retained all the while the high con- 
sciousness of perfect fellowship with God. 

Thus we see in the Person of Jesus, from whatever side we 
view it, the harmoniousness of a strong and noble character. 
But it is not enough for us to contemplate this harmoniousness 
of character : we must also endeavour to understand its source. 
And this source can be found only in the common principle from 
which all His actions proceeded, and by which they were all re- 
gulated. To this, then, we must now direct our attention. 

The principle which governed the whole life of Jesus is dis- 
closed to us in the simple maxim : to do the will of God. That 



THE SINLESSNESS OF CHRIST. 



75 



will, which it was given Him to know immediately and infallibly, 
was His only rule of life ; it, too, was the power which inspired and 
animated Him in action. He did what the Father had commis- 
sioned Him to do — what He saw the Father do : that was His 
meat and His drink. Had He not been entirely subject to God, 
He could not have lived, could not have been satisfied for a single 
moment. Thus His life was perfect obedience. It was not obe- 
dience to the Law merely : it was obedience to the living and 
personal Author of the Law. It was not obedience in one parti- 
cular action ; but this was the spirit which pervaded His whole 
life. And this obedience He learned chiefly by His sufferings : 
though He was a Son, yet learned He obedience by the things 
which He suffered (Heb. v. 8). Again, it was principally thus 
that He gave proof of His obedience : He became obedient unto 
death, even the death of the cross (Phil. ii. 8). By His suffer- 
ings He was made perfect, and was enabled to become for others 
also, the source of obedience unto salvation. (Heb. v. 9 and Rom. 
v. 19 : By the obedience of one, many are made righteous.) 

But it is manifest that we have yet to search for a deeper 
principle from which this obedience itself sprang. And this we 
find in His full and unreserved surrender of Himself to God, that 
is, in His Faith, which of its very nature is one with Love. 
Jesus dwelt in the faith and in the love of God : these were the 
roots of His being, thence He derived all His life. Hence 
the principle which regulated His actions was not the principle 
of Duty, but that of Love : not the constraining consciousness of 
a work which must be done, but the free spontaneous impulse of 
love moving Him to do what His nature would not let Him leave 
undone. In this He shows us that love is higher than law, and 
devotion nobler than duty, because love is the fulfilling of the law. 

But His love to God implies also love to man. He drew the 
copious streams from the Divine fountain, not in order to keep 
them to Himself, but that He might constantly, unweariedly im- 



76 



THE SINLESSNESS OF CHRIST. 



part them to others : and what gives a character so entirely- 
peculiar to the human love of Jesus, what makes it so signally 
different from everything the world had seen before, was just its 
relation to His love to God. For just because the love of Jesus 
for men had its springs in God, the Father of all, the All-holy, 
could it give birth to the greatest of all conceivable thoughts. 
This thought, which transcends our loftiest conceptions, and had 
never before entered into the heart of man, was to achieve the 
salvation of the whole human race, without distinction of age or 
race. Now if the source of His love for men had not been found 
in God, the universal Father, He could not have devised this un- 
speakably great and glorious plan of redeeming the whole human 
family. Then, in the manner, too, in which that design was car- 
ried out, the love of Jesus for man bears a distinct impress of its 
having originated in God. For what is the object aimed at? 
It is the restoration of a fallen, sinful, distracted race, to a holy 
and loving fellowship with God. This could be accomplished by 
Jesus only on the condition of His perfectly entering into the 
circumstances of that race, that is, by Himself sharing them : 
hence His love was essentially a condescending love, a love which 
came to seek and to redeem, — in a word, a compassionate love. 
For it sought not the amiable and the loving, but the unlovely 
and the sinful, the lost and the wretched, in order to impart to 
them its own renewing power, that they might thus be moulded 
and fashioned into worthy objects of love. But this is just the 
characteristic feature of the love of God Himself ; His love is 
essentially a preventing love which seeks the lost, a pitying love 
which compassionates the fallen, and a transforming love which 
restores the ruined. And thus in the appearance of Jesus w 
see not a mere reflex of the love of God, but much more : we se 
in Him the manifestation of that love, as well as its embodimen 
and incarnation in action. 

Finally, this love is the principle of union which reconciles al 



THE SINLESSNESS OF CHRIST. 



77 



apparent contradictions in the nature of J esus, and combines all 
its manifold aspects in a unity of life. That love could enter into 
all the distinctions in human life, ordained by God, and feel 
sympathy and compassion for them all, and at the same time could 
rise above them, and enfold all humanity in its wide embrace. 

It rests with confidence in God, and at the same time prompts 
to ceaseless activity on behalf of men ; it is in itself free and in- 
dependent, and at the same time gives itself as ministering ser- 
vant to all. It imparts strength to do and to endure. It bears 
the stamp equally of majesty and of humility on its consecrated 
brow. It is this love that impresses upon all that flows from 
Jesus the character of religion, and which elevates what we call 
moral to the nature of holiness. Hence it is, that while in Jesus 
piety never forcibly obtrudes itself, yet everything that He did, 
became in His hand an expression and sign of piety ; hence, more- 
over, the whole manifestation of Jesus does not convey to us 
the idea of a character merely religious, or possessing only the 
highest moral qualities, but rather of morality and religion in 
perfect combination : in a word, the idea of Holiness. 

We shall now briefly sum up what has been said. The cha- 
racter of the Lord Jesus presents to us the harmony of a life 
which, in action as well as in suffering, was ever equally pene- 
trated with the Spirit of God, which had its source in the perfect 
love of God, and realized itself in the highest love to man, and 
in an entire self-sacrifice for the salvation of the human race. In 
a word, it is the love of God manifested in a form purely human. 1 
Now the idea of such a Being as this excludes the possibility of 
sin ; for sin, which is in its very nature antagonistic to God, can 

1 Hase, in his Life of Jesus, § 40, characterizes the Redeemer in a few strik- 
ing words, as "the harmony of all powers and capacities, the perfect love of 
God represented in purest humanity." 

Compare Busch. Anleitung zur Mittheilung der Religion und zur Einfulh- 
rung in's Christenthum. Hanover, 1834:, S. 73. Introduction by Liicke. His 
description of the Character of Jesus. 



78 



THE SINLESSNESS OF CHRIST. 



find no place where selfishness, which is its essence and principle, 
is utterly abolished by the full energy of love to God and man. 
And, in fact, the picture of Jesus which the Gospels present to 
us, and that which the apostles everywhere describe, is such, 
that, even if it had not been expressly stated in Scripture that He 
was without sin, we could never have conceived of sin, of separa- 
tion from God, of moral obliquity, as forming a feature in that 
picture, without being sensible that we should thus materially 
disfigure and deface it, nay, destroy it altogether. 

Such is the portrait of the Man Christ Jesus, as drawn for us — 
sometimes in undefined general outlines — at other times, again, 
more fully and distinctly, by the inspired Evangelists. And truly 
we may say, with one now glorified, who made the portrait of 
Jesus his deep and life-long study : 1 "For the very idea of such 
a character one might well let himself be branded or broken on 
i the wheel ; and the man who would laugh or mock at it is cer- 
tainly mad. He whose heart is in the right place must even lie 
low in the dust, and worship, and rejoice." Unquestionably the 
moral image of Jesus, even if regarded as nothing more than an 
idea, is the noblest and dearest possession of Humanity : a thing 
surely for which a man might be willing to live or to die. For 
this idea is the noblest to which, in religion or in morals, the 
mind of man has ever attained. It is the crown and glory of the 
race ; it is the holy place in which the moral consciousness may 
find refuge from the corruption of every-day life. The man who 
would knowingly stain or becloud this idea, would be a blas- 
phemer against the majesty of the divinely-begotten human spirit, 
in its fairest and purest manifestation. 2 Even if we were to re- 

1 The Wandsbeeker Messenger in Letters to Andres. Letter I. 

2 De Wette (Wesen des Christ. Glaubens, § 53, S. 271 and 273) says: "The man 
who comes without preconceived opinion to the Life of Jesus, and who yields 
himself up to the impression which it makes, will feel no manner of doubt that 



I 

THE SINLESSNESS OF CHRIST, 79 

gard the image of Jesus as an invention, we should have to con- 
fess it to be the sublimest fiction that the mind of man has ever 
conceived. We should have to own that, as a romance, it far 
transcends every common experience, and that in its world-trans- 
forming power it had proved itself more mighty and more effica- 
cious than the whole range of actual facts, of whose reality history 
gives us unquestionable evidence. But just because it does so 
transcend alike all the romance and all the reality in the world 
besides, it is impossible for us to regard it as a fiction : just 
because it is so deeply and indissolubly interwoven with the whole 
development of the human race, and because, more particularly, 
the origin of the Christian Faith, in its peculiar features, would 
be utterly inexplicable if it be not true, — we must of necessity 
view it as historical and real. 

Poesy, whenever it brings to light some true and perfect work, 
never creates out of nothing ; she must always have some 
materials to work upon, taken from the world of reality, some 
given substratum on which to build her fabric ; what she pro- 
duces is always a picture of real life, which she has, by a free 
spiritual transformation, caused, as it were, to be born anew. Now 
the materials on which fiction works, may be either borrowed from 
without, or they may be drawn from the depths of the poet's own 
mind : one or other of these must be the case, else the fiction will 
be wholly void of meaning and of result. The poet has a right 
to expect that the characters which he draws will be recognized, 
and that his representation will be attended with success, only 
when he makes them real, only when he can say of them, as 
Goethe's Tasso says of his : "I know they are immortal, for 
they are." 1 And who can call in question the fact, that the cha- 

He is the most exalted character and the purest soul that history presents to 
us." " He walked over the earth like some nobler being who scarce touched it 
with His feet." 

1 " Ich weiss es, sie sind ewig, denn sie sind" — Goethe's Tasso. 



80 



THE SINLESSNESS OF CHRIST. 



racter of Jesus is true in itself, and thoroughly consistent,— that 
His whole life was subordinated to one great principle, and re- 
volved around one central point ? And whence, then, were the 
materials for this history derived ? Either from a real Person 
seen in the world ; and if so, the historical character of Jesus, at 
least in its general features, is recognized : or they were drawn 
from the mind of those who record His life ; but then it must 
first be proved that this latter hypothesis is the more correct, or 
even the more probable, of the two. 

Modern criticism holds the opinion, that the picture of the Per- 
sonality of Jesus was the work of the fancy of the earliest Chris- 
tian Church, who invented, after His death, this description of the 
Pounder of their religion. But this runs counter to all historical 
analogy. The great revolutions of history have not been effected 
by fictitious personages, but by living men : and those men must 
have possessed within themselves a real power corresponding to, 
and accounting for, the influence they possessed. Then, it is not 
conceivable that a community, that is, a number of individuals 
differently constituted, should have succeeded in producing so 
harmonious a character. Or is it imagined that one man was the 
author of this image ? But in that case we are at a loss to un- 
derstand how that individual could produce so rare a work. We 
must, moreover, have to rank him higher than the object which 
called forth his inventive power: to him we must accord the 
meed of wonder and praise which we withhold from Jesus. But 
we should not thus find an explanation of the problem, which has in- 
deed only become more difficult and involved. 1 For in this case, as 
well as in the former, the first question which we put is still this : 
how is it that an ideal of so perfect a kind ever came into the 
mind of man, whether of many men or of one individual ? We 
know, indeed, that a Messiah was then looked for in Israel, and 

1 Truly, says Rousseau in this connection : " L'inventeur en seroit plus 
etonnant que le heros." 



THE SINLESSKESS OF CHRIST. 



81 



that His advent was an object of deep desire. But, generally, it 
is not credible that a faith like that of the Apostles, (capable of 
imparting life and of conquering death,) in the real existence of a 
Redeemer, could arise from this want and longing alone, without 
the influence of a Person who satisfied that want and realized 
that longing. Still less is it conceivable that a faith which came 
into existence in so negative a way, should have been able to draw 
from itself the positive image of a Redeemer of a majesty and 
holiness such as is held up to us in the Gospels. The men from 
whose spirit, according to this hypothesis, this image is supposed 
to have arisen, were sinful men, and men, too, who, in a religious 
point of view, were hemmed in within very narrow limits — this is 
what it is impossible to deny. How could the image of a per- 
fectly sinless and holy Being arise from the unclean heart of a 
sinful man? How could a Form of a sublime majesty, such as 
mankind had till then no conception of, and would not have at 
this day if it had not been here presented to us, — how could that 
appear upon the bounded horizon of a Jewish mind? Or could 
the idea of Him who was the first to embrace, in His boundless 
love, the whole human race, arise within the narrow conscious- 
ness of an Israelite ? Further, the incredibility of all this will be 
fully apparent, if we take into consideration the education and 
mental training of the first disciples. They were plain, simple 
men ; untrained as authors ; the large proportion of them were 
anything but men of fancy and imagination. They were men of 
sincerity and simplicity in their religious belief : hence they would 
not have invented had they been able. And even if they would, 
it is certain that they could never have succeeded in achieving, 
with the means at their disposal, (humanly speaking, so insigni- 
ficant,) what the masters of thought and of discourse, a Plato 
and a Xenophon, had, in their account of Socrates, failed to ac- 
complish. 

Let criticism show us that anything similar occurs elsewhere 

F 



82 



THE SINLES8NESS OF CHRIST. 



in the page of history ! Until it does so, (and it never will be 
able to do so,) we shall continue to maintain — what seems so 
abundantly evident to every healthy mind, — that the reason why 
the disciples have been able to place before our eye in such vivid 
reality so great a majesty of moral character, so world-embrac- 
ing a love, — a love which performed the noblest achievements, 
and did not despise the humblest, — is, that they themselves had 
previously seen in real life One who manifested those qualities. 
The inimitable nature of the Gospel-picture must ever remain 
one of its leading characteristics. But the fact, that it cannot be 
imitated, is a pledge of the truth of its contents. For to what 
is it to be ascribed ? It cannot consist in the human originality 
of the writers, for in that many others have far surpassed them : 
it must then arise from, the Divine originality of the subject of 
whom they wrote ; which they were able to describe with such 
vividness and power, because He was Himself objectively pre- 
sented to their view. 



THE SINLESSNESS OF CHRIST. 



83 



SECTION THIRD. 

IMPORT OF THE APOSTOLICAL UTTERANCES ON THE MORAL DIGNITY 
AND PURITY OF JESUS. 

It cannot be denied that the Apostles with one consent see in 
J esus a high moral nature, nay, a holy sinless Being ; and that 
they vindicate the right of faith in His moral perfection by a re- 
cord of His life which bears the impress of truth. But there 
meet us even here sundry objections, which we will at once re- 
move, because the discussion of them will furnish an opportunity 
to touch upon several other important points. 

The Apostles, it is alleged, in the first instance, 1 were not very 
precise in the terms they used when speaking of the sinlessness of 
Jesus. Thus, when they applied to Him the epithets, " holy, 
pure, righteous, without sin," they did so simply in the sense in 
which Xenophon bears testimony to Socrates, that no one ever 
saw him commit an unrighteous action, or heard him say an un- 
holy word; 2 and yet no one ever thought of concluding from 
these expressions that that heathen was absolutely without sin. 
What Xenophon testifies of Socrates is the very least of what 
the Apostles have maintained concerning Jesus ; for the latter 
have gone a very great way further than the former. This is 
seen most clearly from the relation that their sayings on this sub- 
ject hold, — -first, to their doctrine concerning Christ ; and second, 
to the view which they took of His life. Truly, Jesus was to 
His disciples much more than Socrates was to his School. They 
saw in Him not merely a noble, truth- seeking man, and one who 

1 Hase, Leben Jesu, § 32. Strauss, Glaubenslehre, ii. 192. 

2 Memorabilia, I. 11. 



84 



THE SINLESSNESS OF CHRIST. 



ever strove to attain wisdom, but the Son of God— Him whom the 
Father had sanctified and sent into the world to accomplish His 
will. When the disciples thought and said of such a man that 
He was free from sin, it is certain that they did not intend thereby 
to maintain merely His irreproach ability, but at the same time 
testified of the positive perfection and unstained holiness of His re- 
ligious and moral life ; and it is certain they held this not in an 
indefinite and superficial sense, but in the most exact and fullest 
conceivable sense. And we arrive at the same conclusion if we 
consider the view they took of His life as the foundation of their 
faith in Him. In the life of Jesus, as set forth by them, there is 
disclosed a far deeper and purer moral spirit than that which meets 
our view in the life of Socrates. We see in the life of Jesus a 
principle of piety, a power of self-sacrificing love, compared with 
which, even the noblest moral examples of ancient Heathendom 
must fall into the background. Then, in proportion as Jesus 
(as described by His disciples) is morally and religiously far 
superior to Socrates, (as described by his disciples,) has the say- 
ing of the followers of Jesus a higher significance than it has in 
the mouth of the followers of Socrates, when both affirm of 
their respective Masters, that there was nothing unholy in their 
actions or in their conversation. And although it never occurred 
to any one to conclude from those words of Xenophon that 
Socrates was without sin, it has certainly from the first occurred 
to many a one to draw that conclusion concerning Jesus from the 
testimony of the Apostles. The reason of this is, not only be- 
cause the words of the Apostles have a different meaning from 
those of Xenophon, but also because (as we shall presently see) 
they occur in a totally different connection : in an internal con- 
nection with the self-consciousness of Jesus Himself, and in an 
historical connection with the effects of His life. 

Again, our opponents seek to confine the apostolic utterances 
concerning Jesus within very narrow limits. The testimony of 



THE SINLESSNESS OF CHRIST. 



85 



the Apostles concerning Jesus, they say, in as far as they give 
in it a statement of their own experience, is naturally to be taken 
in a restricted sense, and implies simply this, that they knew of 
no sin with which He was chargeable : it is thus to be regarded 
as a merely negative statement. There were two things, it is 
said, which stood in the way of their positive knowledge of the 
character of J esus : In the first place, Jesus was known to them 
only during the three years of His public ministry, and of their 
intimate intercourse with Him; whilst in the earlier period of 
His life, many a thing, in word and deed, had gone forth from 
Him, of which they had no knowledge whatever. And again, in 
the time of their intercourse with Him even, they could not see 
into His heart : and yet the moral worth of any action consists 
not in the external act, but in the spirit from which it flows, and 
that is known to God alone, the searcher of hearts. 1 

Xow with regard to the first of these objections, viz., that the 
Apostles knew nothing of the early period of the life of Jesus, 
we remark, that the conclusion which our opponents seek to de- 
duce from this circumstance proceeds from an altogether incor- 
rect idea of moral development in general. This development 
must ever be viewed as growing into an organic and connected 
whole : and if it be true that occasionally great crises occur in 
a man's life, that extraordinary and sudden revolutions take 

1 These thoughts are enlarged upon by Dr Weber : Virtutis Jesu integritas 
neque ex ipsius professionibus neque ex actionibus doceri potest. Viteb. 1796 
(Opusc. Academ., S. 179.) Also Bretschneider (Doguiatik, § 138.) But their 
treatment of the doctrine of anamartesia is very different. Bretschneider is 
simply negative. Weber, who doubts only the validity of the historical proof 
of the sinlessness of Jesus, proceeds to take a positive view, and rests his be- 
lief in His sinless character upon the testimony of God concerning Jesus, i.e., 
that He calls Him His beloved Son, (Matt. iii. 17, xvii. 5;) and also upon the 
fact of the Resurrection, by which the whole life and work of Christ were 
confirmed, (1 Timothy iii. 16.) Similarly Fritzsche. The objections of Weber 
and Fritzsche, compendiously stated in Hase, Leben Jesu, § 32, and Strauss^ 
Giaubenslehre, ii. 192. 



85 



THE SINLESSISTESS OF CHRIST. 



place, still these are not to be regarded as abrupt or accidental 
changes, but are evidently the result of antecedent moral states, 
whose effects more or less exist even subsequent to those 
changes. Certain it is, at all events, that sin, when it has once 
taken up its abode in the heart, can never be so entirely banished 
thence, that no traces of it can any more be found in conscience, 
disposition, or conduct. 1 The wound of sin may be healed, but 
its mark remains. Never in life does it occur, as we have already 
shown when treating of its nature, as a separate and isolated 
act. Wherever sin exists, there must be a perversion of prin- 
ciples, a disturbance of inward harmony, a diseased interception 
and debilitation of the moral powers. And whenever this pollut- 
ing and perverting power has once obtained a footing within the 
domain of moral life, its effects will invariably be felt ; and a life 
which is tarnished by sin, were it only at one point of its develop- 
ment, will always be specifically different from one which has never 
felt its unholy influence. 

To this an objection has been raised. A distinction, it has 
been said, must be drawn between wilful and unwilful sins. Of 
these, only the former introduce a disturbing element into the 
moral consciousness : the latter, it is affirmed, might occur in the 
life of even the best of men, without in the least affecting the 
purity of his heart. The man who sins without willing it, 
scarcely perceives himself that he is transgressing against the law, 
far less can others perceive it. 2 But sin, even when committed 
unconsciously, is still a departure from the law : it is a want of 
a full recognition of the law, and of an adequate fulfilment of its 
requirements. Even involuntary sin cannot occur by accident 
or in disconnection with the antecedent life. On the contrary, it 
is connected with some sinful tendency which lurks deep in the 

1 Schleiermacher, Festpredigten, S. 95 et seqq. 

2 This objection is brought forward by Eritzsche, 1st Programme, pp. 
18, 19. 



THE SINLESSNESS OF CHRIST. 



87 



recesses of the soul, from which it emerges whenever an oppor- 
tunity is presented. A man is indeed often unconscious of the 
commission of single sins of comparatively little heinousness, at 
the moment of committing them ; but he is not the less conscious 
that he has committed many such ; and this consciousness induces 
him to humble himself even for others which he does not know of, 
and to seek their forgiveness : " Cleanse Thy servant from secret 
faults !" But with Jesus this was not the case. Are we then to 
suppose either that He knew nothing Himself of His involuntary 
sins ; or that He knew of them, but would not, like other men, 
humble Himself before God because of them ? If the former, 
then His self-knowledge was small indeed : if the latter, then His 
self-esteem and presumption were wondrous great. 

But to return. If it be true that the effects of sin, when it has 
once found its way into the heart, remain and influence the 
whole life, we are thus shut up to this alternative : either we must 
affirm that no weight or validity is due to the testimony which 
the Apostles give of the purity of Christ in mind and in conver- 
sation ; or we must receive their testimony for the three years of 
their intimate intercourse with Him, as holding good also of the 
earlier period of His life when they did not know Him. We can- 
not separate those three years from that earlier life, of which we 
must regard them as the result. Everything that we know of 
Jesus discloses a moral purity and freshness, an unimpaired 
vitality and power, such as it is impossible to conceive of as hav* 
ing been gained by severe and arduous conflict, and preceded by 
shortcomings and youthful aberrations. So fair a fruit as the 
moral life of Jesus could grow only from a thoroughly healthy 
root. If the inference, that the perfection of the Whole implies 
the perfection of its Parts, be logically correct, we may say that 
in the domain of morals the converse holds good. For every truly 
moral life is a unity ; nor can we mark off a certain portion of it 
which is full of action, and say of it, that it is perfect, while of the 



88 



THE SINLESSNESS OF CHRIST. 



rest we affirm that it is faulty : on the contrary, the perfection of 
the part implies that of the whole. Just as from the perfection of 
the fragment we augur the original perfection of the whole work, 
so, if we recognize the validity of the apostolic testimony concern- 
ing Jesus at all, we may rest assured that the whole of His life was 
in perfect keeping with that portion with which we are acquainted. 

It is, however, by no means the case, that we are altogether 
without evidence as to the former period of the life of Jesus. 
We have, for one thing, the very remarkable account given by 
St Luke (ii. 41-52) of the conduct of Jesus, when twelve years of 
age, in the Temple at Jerusalem. Especially important in this 
narrative is His answer to His parents when rebuked for His ab- 
sence : How is it that ye sought Me? wist ye not that I must 
be about My Father's business? (verse 49.) In this answer, we 
have the expression of a state of inward life which, on the one 
hand, proves its genuineness by its childlike simplicity, and at 
the same time discovers to us such a purity, depth and power of 
the thought of God within His soul, that it in a manner prepares 
us for all the coming glory of Jesus. And even if it is to be 
supposed that this incident in His early history was of an extra- 
ordinary character, we have besides a testimony to the whole 
preceding period of the life of Jesus. The expressions which 
John the Baptist used concerning Him had reference to the 
whole of His early life, and are very significant and important. 
This man, at once the simplest and the most truthful of his age 
and nation, bore testimony to His early life, not in words only, 
but also- by deeds : nay, his whole life was a witness-bearing for 
Christ. Now it is hardly possible to call in question the exist- 
ence of a very close relation between Jesus and John. 1 This ad- 

1 The words tlx, ytiuv olvtov (John i. 31-33), are to be referred only to the 
full recognition of the Messiah. Compare on the relation of John to Jesus, 
Planck, Geschichte des Christenthums, Theil 1, Seite 116; and Neander's Life 
of Jesus. 



THE S1NLESSNESS OF CHRIST. 



89 



mitted, consider the import of the act, when John refused to bap- 
tize Jesus, on the plea that he had much more need to be bap- 
tized of Him ; and when, on the manifestation of Christ, he hum- 
bly withdrew into the background, confessing that a greater 
than he had come, who must increase while he must decrease. 
The whole nation, as if acting under the impulse of a higher 
power, moved by everything that was best in it, came to do 
homage to the Baptist : and this spiritual hero, this r^an of God 
and of the people, in his turn laid the homage of his life at the 
feet of the Redeemer, when in the most solemn moment of his life 
he submitted himself to His authority. Nor did Jesus refuse the 
homage of John : on the contrary, He accepted it as His right. 
" And thus it is that the highest and noblest of human beings, 
they before whom all men bow the knee, are content to fall into 
the shade, that the Divine may shine forth in its incomparable 
light. John was willing to vanish away, that in Christ the t>ivine 
might receive its due." 1 

We come now to the second objection raised. The Apostles, 
it is said, could pronounce upon the outward and legal character 
of the life of Jesus, but they could not assert the inward purity 
of His spirit. It is unquestionably true, that they could not look 
immediately into His heart like the Omniscient Searcher of 
hearts : but, I ask, what is a man's life but the index and revela- 
tion of his spirit ; and is it possible to account for a perfectly 
moral life otherwise than on the supposition of a perfectly moral 
soul which it represents ; can we explain purity of action other- 
wise than as flowing from purity of heart ? Shall we derive 
purity from impurity — streams of goodness from a polluted 
source ? Or what circumstance is there in the life of Jesus to 
favour the idea that He ever acted in a manner merely legal and 
external, while in heart He was not truly good, or that His 

1 Steudel, in Grundziigen einer Apologetik, S. 59. 



90 



THE SINLESSNESS OF CHRIST. 



inmost disposition was in conflict with His actions? 1 If the dis- 
position and the life of Jesus, the inward spirit and the outward 
deed, the motive and the action, formed one connected whole, 
(and we have no ground whatever to suppose the contrary,) 
then the Apostles were certainly entitled, and we no less, to infer 
from the excellence of the life the purity of the source from which 
It flowed. But if, on the contrary, the Apostles had no right to 
make this inference, if we have no right to do so, then all we can 
say is, that there exists no test of true morality and no means of 
knowing where it exists, and the saying which universal experi- 
ence has attested has proved false after all : By their fruits ye 
shall know them. (The meaning of which words is certainly 
not — -by their isolated actions, but — by their whole course of 
life.) In that case, our view would be ever bounded by the out- 
ward appearance ; we could know nothing of men beyond what 
met the eye, and should be incapable of penetrating to their 
spirit. History would then present to us only the husk, nowhere 
the kernel ; and thus that very thing would be denied us, for the 
sake of which alone it is worth while to make moral characters 
objects of contemplation at all. The principle on which the ob- 
jection is based, would, if applied generally, prove a great deal 
too much, for it would abolish all faith in human virtue and 
spiritual greatness : hence it proves nothing at all. 

To this it may be replied : that there is a great difference be- 
tween holding the opinion of any one, that he is an honest, well- 
meaning, worthy man, and pronouncing him to be altogether 
holy and free from sin ; the former may be said without exag- 
geration of any good man, not so the latter. 2 Now we readily 
admit that the two statements are widely different, but we must 

1 Kant was of opinion that the agreement between a blameless life and moral 
teaching could rightly be ascribed only to a mind of purest disposition, when 
there was no proof to the contrary. And is there any proof of this in Jesus ? 

2 See Fritzsche, 1st Programme, p. 19. 



THE SINLESSNESS OF CHRIST. 



91 



withhold our assent from the inferences founded on this distinc- 
tion. On the contrary, we submit this question : In how far are 
we warranted in forming a judgment of a man's character from 
his line of conduct ? If, in all cases, we are justified in inferring 
character from conduct, then surely in the case where the con- 
duct is faultless, as well as where it is marked by inconsistency 
and sin. If from a noble life we may infer a noble soul, then 
surely from a stainless life we may infer a stainless soul. Must 
there not have been a cause in the character of Jesus which 
moved the Apostles to regard Him as " without sin?" And here 
we may refer once more to a fact which has already been noticed : 
viz., that the idea of sinlessness was by no means so common an 
idea, that all that was necessary to lead men like the Apostles to 
apply it to Christ was an accident or some insufficient occasion. 
Quite the contrary : this idea was never thought of, nor had it 
ever entered into the heart of man to conceive it, until it appeared, 
not as an idea merely, but as a reality in the life of Jesus of 
Nazareth. Even now to believe in the realizing of the idea of 
sinlessness in an individual, is not so very easy a thing for human 
nature in its present state. Men are not in general much ad- 
dicted to the weakness of believing too easily in the existence of 
purity of heart and true greatness : it is a fact, that they are only 
too prone to doubt them where they really exist. It appears as 
something marvellous and extraordinary in the extreme, that once, 
and only once in the world's history, (and that too in a time of 
great moral degradation,) the impression could be produced upon 
the minds of a number of men, that a character was unfolding itself 
before their very eyes, of perfect purity and sinless holiness, and 
that the consequence of its manifestation was to produce in them 
a faith for which they lived and in which they died. But once does 
this fact occur in the history of mankind. Now how is this pheno- 
menon to be explained? Clearly in no other way but by believing 
that He who was thus acknowledged and honoured as a perfectly 



92 



THE SINLESSNESS OF CHRIST. 



holy and sinless character was really so ; that by a Divine power 
He compelled the minds of those who associated with Him to 
regard Him as the highest perfection of moral excellence, and 
in boundless admiration and love to devote themselves to His 
service. 1 If it be true that to believe in perfect virtue is a rarer 
and bolder thing than to believe in common everyday excellence, 
because the former is so contrary to all experience ; and if the 
former faith requires a higher elevation of mind ; the fact that, 
notwithstanding, such a faith actually did exist, is all the stronger 
a proof that it had a real objective cause. 

We do not say that this proves everything. The evidence 
hitherto brought forward is not, we freely confess, sufficient to 
establish the sinlessness of Jesus. 2 The testimony hitherto quoted 
furnishes no adequate and independent proof : it is only when 
supported by other testimony that it is of weight. We have 
indeed seen, that Jesus was recognized by men of very different 
natures and dispositions as a morally pure, guiltless, and stain- 
less being : that, in particular, those that stood in the nearest 
relation to Him were convinced of His high moral dignity, nay, 
of His perfect holiness. But this has been received only on 
human authority ; and we know that no human being can ever 
give an absolute guarantee of entire freedom from sin. For, in 
order to pronounce concerning any one that he is absolutely free 
from sin, a perfect knowledge of his heart is above all things 
requisite ; and even the Apostles possessed no perfect knowledge 
of the heart of Jesus. And yet their testimony is still of great 
and decisive importance. In the first place, negatively : for had 
it been awanting, or had they in any one respect said what might 
convey an impression of the contrary, or led us to believe that 
Jesus was capable of committing sin, then would faith in Him at 
once appear as something impossible. Positively too : for it is 

1 Comp. Ullmann ; Historisch oder Mythisch, p. 13. 

2 Fritzsche in I. Programme, pp. 14-16. 



THE SINLESSNESS OF CHRIST. 



93 



indeed much that Jesus should have produced upon all with whom 
He came in contact the impression of a pure, sinless, and holy 
being ; that this was true, most of all, of those who were most 
intimately acquainted with Him ; and that this impression was 
not merely of a general or indefinite kind, but one which found 
expression in the most lively description of individual character. 
Once more, the positive significance of the testimony of the 
Apostles to the sinlessness of Jesus is seen in this most important 
circumstance : that the descriptions handed clown to us present a 
picture in which the subsequent moral development of nineteen 
centuries has discovered no fault or blemish : in which men of the 
present day still recognize the standard of pure morality. 1 



SECTION FOURTH. 

THE TESTIMOISTT OF JESUS HIMSELF. 

The testimony of the Apostles receives its full confirmation 
and its proper validity from the testimony of Jesus Himself. 
The two must be taken together, for only together do they form 
a satisfactory proof. He, whom others regarded as a spotless 
and holy being, must be fully conscious in Himself of perfect free- 
dom from sin : and again, this consciousness of His must be cor- 
roborated by the impression which He produces upon others ; 
thus united alone can either testimony receive its full import. 
Further, it is necessary to complete the proof, that effects shall 
have attended such a Manifestation, and influences gone forth 
from this Sinless One, such as can be ascribed to or explained by 
no other cause but the real presence of moral perfection : if this 
be established, we shall have attained the highest degree of evi- 
dence that we can look for in this matter. True it is, that in 
regarding the utterances of Jesus as possessed of independent 

1 Hase, Leben Jesu, § 32. 



94 



THE STNLESSNESS OF CHRIST. 



authority, we proceed upon the conviction that those sayings of 
His are not the mere reflex of the faith of the Apostles in Him, 
but were spoken in very deed by His own lips. And this we 
firmly believe to be the case. We are led to believe this, first, 
from the historical nature of the evangelic narrative in general ; 
and more particularly, we claim, for the reasons alluded to above, 
the character of reality for the account which the Evangelists 
present of the personality of Jesus. Now, if we were to regard 
the words therein ascribed to Christ as not having been really 
spoken by Him, this narrative would be manifestly faulty and 
contradictory, and quite out of keeping with all which the apos- 
tolic and early Church believed concerning Jesus. 

In considering the testimony of Jesus concerning Himself, let 
us first contemplate its negative aspect. 1 As we might expect 
from one so holy, Jesus stood out in stern antagonism to evil. 
He drew it out into the light of day, displayed it in its true 
colours, rebuked and fought against it to the utmost ; nay, His 
whole life was devoted to the task of combating its dominion : 
while, on the other hand, He was merciful to the penitent sinner, 
and bestowed His commendations upon him who, in the deep 
consciousness of sin, humbled himself before God (Luke xviii. 
9-14). Now, He who had so keen an eye for the sins of others, 
must, if we will not suppose Him to have been self-blinded, have 
seen as clearly sin in Himself. But we find nowhere in His his- 
tory, as we do in the case of the best of men, even the most occa- 
sional expression of the consciousness of sin : there is no humbling 
of Himself before God on account of sin — there is no prayer for 
the forgiveness of sin. 2 Does not this inevitably lead to the con- 

1 This part of the subject is treated at greater length by the author in Stu- 
dien uud Kritiken, 1843, 3, pp. 661-7. See also Nitzsch, System der Christ- 
lichen Lehre, § 129. 

2 Compare on this subject Steinert : Dissertatio de peculiari indole precum 
Domini. 1817. 



THE SINLESSNESS OF CHRIST. 



95 



elusion, that the source from whence those feelings, which we find 
precisely in the men of highest moral character, proceed, had in 
Him no existence whatever ? It follows likewise, from what He 
said on the occasion of His baptism, that He felt conscious that 
He needed for Himself no repentance or regeneration, (Matt. iii. 
13-17.) The reason why He allowed Himself to be baptized, was 
simply that He might obey this law of the kingdom of God. 1 

But more than this. So far was Jesus from standing in need 
of forgiveness for Himself, that the position He held with reference 
to sinful men was that of a pardoner of sin. He came not only 
to preach forgiveness, He came to bestow it : and could this have 
been done by one who felt guilt and sin in himself ? Would it 
in that case have been anything but an impious arrogation to 
Himself of a Divine prerogative ? To forgive sin belongs to God 
only ; hence Jesus could claim that right only on the ground of 
a deep consciousness of oneness with God, — a consciousness based 
upon a feeling of peculiar elevation above sin, This alone could 
enable Him to give to sinners, on His own authority, an assur- 
ance of pardon : and in virtue of this consciousness alone, could 
He impart to His disciples a power to forgive sins, such as they 
received from Him after the communication of the gift of the 
Holy Ghost : John xx. 22, 23. 

But the positive testimonies are much stronger. And here we 
have first of all to notice that most conclusive saying of Jesus* 
which we find in St John's Gospel : " Which of you convinceth 
Me of sin?" (John viii. 46.) When we read this question, the 
feeling forces itself upon us, that its Author must have been 
a personality of a moral character most peculiar : a feeling 
greatly strengthened by the recollection, that He who spoke these 
words was one who in His whole life presents to us a picture at 
once of purest truthfulness and most Divine humility. Every 
man, too, must at once be fully convinced that he has no right 

1 Neander's Leben Jesu, 5 Aufiage, S. 101. (Bohn's English edition, p. 66.) 



96 



THE SINLESSNESS OF CHETST. 



to make these words of simple greatness his own, and that for 
him to apply them to himself, and in the face of the most unan- 
swerable facts, and with the clamant voice of conscience sounding 
in his ear, to call in question his sinfulness, would only prove him 
a vain fool or a miserable self-deceiver. Least of all could this 
happen within the sphere of Christian life, where the idea of 
Divine holiness was so clearly stamped, the moral law carried to 
such a height of perfection, and the claims of conscience so highly 
respected ; — least of all in a community from the midst of which 
we hear that same Apostle, who has preserved to us the saying of 
Jesus, exclaim : 4 £ If we say that we have no sin we deceive our- 
selves, and the truth is not in us," (1 John i. 8.) 1 It is certainly a 
fact of the highest significance, that, in opposition to this attesta- 
tion of universal sinfulness, which every one without exception 
must endorse, there is One who steps forth from the ranks of 
humanity and exclaims : Who convinceth Me of sin ? 

But the meaning of this question must be somewhat more 
closely determined. The very word 2 on which most depends has 
been variously understood. We have translated it simply, " sin," 
as Luther and the authorized English version render it ; but the 
word requires a fuller investigation. The general idea of the 
Greek expression which here comes under notice, is, as is well 
known, that of transgression. This general idea, again, is spe- 
cially applied in a twofold sense : it either means a defalcation in 
the sphere of mind, and then it is error, mistake, untruth ; or it 
means a transgression in the domain of morals, and then it is 
known as sin, perversion of will, wrong. The word is used in 
the former sense, (only under certain assumptions, it is true,) in 
classical Greek : in the latter sense, it is used in Hellenistic, 
and specially in New Testament Greek. From the earliest times 
commentators have differed with regard to this twofold use of 
the word in their exposition of the passage under consideration. 
1 Comp. Lucke, vol. iii., pp. 98-100. a ^o^r/*. 



THE SINLESSNESS OF CHRIST. 



97 



Some have maintained that Jesus intended, by this expression, to 
claim for Himself exemption from error. 1 Others, again, have held 
that He claims freedom from sin. And again, some have included 
the two ideas in one, making the question of Christ imply a refe- 
rence both to error and to sin : any aberration of whatever kind, 
be it intellectual or moral, from the true and right way. Lastly, 
some have been of opinion that the word sin is here best rendered 
deception. These two last opinions, however, we may at once set 
aside, as warranted neither by the use of language nor by the 
occasion, and as having at best only a probability in their favour. 
The two first expositions require a more detailed investigation. 

The view according to which Jesus asks, " Which of you con- 
vinceth me of error ? " would seem to be favoured by the context, 
Immediately before, Jesus had designated his Jewish antagonists 
children of Satan, the man-murderer, the liar from the beginning, 
implying that theirs was a temper which proved their relationship 
to Satan, in that they refused to believe on Him who taught the 
truth of God, and even persecuted Him to the death. Then He 
would ask: " Which of you convinceth me of error?"- — adding 
(for throughout the whole passage the contrast between truth 
and error, i.e., falsehood, is held fast), the further question : 
" And if I say (not falsehood but) the truth, why do ye not be- 
lieve me ? " 

Now, supposing that this explanation of the passage is the 
correct one, even in that case these words of Jesus would be of 
great importance for our purpose, for they would at least con- 
tain an indirect testimony to the religious and moral purity of 
Jesus. For if He claims exemption from error in that province 
which alone comes under consideration in this passage, viz., 
the domain of morality and religion, this must imply that He lays 

1 This explanation occurs in Origen, in his Commentary on John (xx. 25.) 
Comp. Liicke, Comment, z. Johan. Th. ii. Seite 298, and Meyer, both of whom 
refute it. 

a 



98 



THE SINLESSNESS OF CHRIST. 



claim to purity of inward nature and of outward conduct. For 
freedom from sin presupposes freedom from error and vice versa, 
— the two act and re-act upon each other. Unquestionably the 
two in the sense of the New Testament, and especially of that 
Gospel in which this saying of Jesus is found, form one connected 
whole, just as their opposites sin and untruth do. 1 And yet this 
explanation cannot be regarded as correct. 

In the first place, there attaches to it a verbal difficulty, which 
it is not easy to set aside. In classical usage, the word (afiapria) 
never occurs in the sense of error, without having beside it a 
modifying and determining clause or word. 3 In the New Testa- 
ment it is very uncertain whether it can be satisfactorily shown 
that the word ever does occur in this sense; 3 least of all can 
this be shown in the use of the word in John's writings : the idea 
he attaches to it is invariably that of sin. But the objections 
which arise from the passage itself, viewed with reference to the 
context, are still greater. Were we to adopt this explanation, 
there would, in the first place, be traceable no progress in the 
argument ; this verse would not supply the reason or motive of 
what is said in the preceding verse, but would really be nothing 
more than a repetition of it. For, when J esus in that verse (John 
viii. 45) said : I speak the truth, He made a statement which re- 
quired to be proved. Now, if in the 46th verse He asks, " Which 
of you convinceth Me of error," this would be a mere repetition 
in a negative form, of the statement already made in a positive 
form, and by no means an argument in proof of it. Second, such 
a rendering of the word would destroy the analogy of the con- 
trast which Jesus draws between Satan and the Jews on the one 

1 Compare with reference to this Frommann's Doctrine of St John (S. 181- 
309, 550-654:, etc.) 

2 Plato de Leg. 1. 627, 668 ; Thucydides 1, 32 ; 2, 65. See Meyer, Commen- 
tary on John, 2d Ed., p. 243. 

3 The passages 1 Corinthians xv. 34 ; Titus iii. 11, prove nothing conclu- 
sively. 



THE SINLESSNESS OF CHRIST. 



99 



hand, and Himself as the Son of God on the other. For if, in 
the first part, regard is had not only to what is intellectually true, 
but above all to their moral condition, this must be the case in 
the second clause also. Third, if the reference of the word be to 
intellectual error, and not to moral defalcation, the idea of their 
believing on Him is irrelevant. For to say that because they 
could not convince Him of error they must believe on Him, would 
be to make faith the consequence of an intellectual proving of the 
object of it, whereas in truth faith rests on the immediate and 
spontaneous attraction of the soul to the Holy One, as revealed in 
Jesus. 

If we now take up the second explanation of the passage : 
Which of you convinceth me of sin f we shall find all these diffi- 
culties disappear. To this rendering there is no verbal objec- 
tion ; it falls in admirably with the context ; it supplies a proof 
of the statement just made in the preceding verse. Jesus had 
previously maintained, in opposition to the unbelief of His hearers, 
that He spoke the truth ; and, in order to establish that allega- 
tion, he takes his stand upon the fact, that no one could convince 
Him of sin. He lays down the indisputable fact of His moral 
purity, as a pledge and a guarantee of the truth of His doctrine. 
The progress of their thoughts may be conceived to be as fol- 
lows : — Jesus had in His mind 1 the contrast between truth and 
falsehood 2 already noticed ; and while He subsumes falsehood, 
that is the special, under sin, that is the general, the train of 
thought He pursues seems to be as follows : " If I am free from 
sin, I must also be free from falsehood, for falsehood is sinful ; 
and if I do not speak falsehood then I speak the truth, and ye 

1 Verse 44. " Ye are of your father the devil, and the lusts of your father 
ye will do. He was a murderer from the beginning, and abode not in the truth, 
because there is no truth in him. When he speaketh a lie, he speaketh of his 
own, for he is a liar and the father of it." 

2 ScKviQuet, and ^ivdos. 



100 



THE SINLESSNESS OF CHK1ST. 



have no reason to withhold from me jour faith." The entire 
argument He does not, however, express in words : the middle 
clause remains unspoken, viz., that He is free also from false- 
hood ; and He goes on at once from the repudiation of sinfulness, 
to the positive contrary which follows from His sinlessness, viz., 
His speaking the truth. 1 But there seems to be something arti- 
ficial and unwarranted in introducing the idea of falsehood, 
which is, moreover, in fact unnecessary. The thought is not only 
equally clear, but it becomes more forcible, when we content our- 
selves with simply dwelling on those statements which Jesus has 
put in immediate connection. Generally speaking, the funda- 
mental argument is the view of the intimate connection which 
subsists between the domain of morals and that of intellect, and 
it is from a consciousness of this connection that Jesus speaks; 
" As you, my opponents, reject Me, and in Me reject the truth, 
because your temper is morally depraved — is satanic. So, on the 
other hand, I can lawfully present Myself as one who speaks the 
Truth, because I am free from sin." The conclusion is at once 
and immediately drawn — from the fact that He is free from sin 
and from the moral purity of His character — to the truth of His 
words and to the obligation lying upon His hearers to believe in 
Him : and this is a thought which fits in so well with the whole 
character of the Johannean representation of Christ, that to no 
one who is acquainted with those writings can it in any way ap- 
pear strange. 2 Certain it is, that Jesus expresses in this passage 

1 Meyer Commentar. S. 244; Schumann, Christus, B. i,, S. 287. 

2 To maintain either with Lucke that " the Sinless One is the purest and 
surest organ of knowledge and medium of truth or with Be Wette, that " the 
knowledge of Truth rests on the purity of the will, would be to presuppose a 
knowledge of the Truth attained by Jesus in His human state. But this is 
contrary to the teaching of John, who regards His knowledge as something 
intuitive and possessed before His earthly existence. So thinks Meyer in his 
Commentary (S. 243.) But the objection is not to the point. The question is 
not how He acquired His perfect knowledge of the Truth, but how He showed 



THE SINLESSNESS OF CHRIST. 



101 



directly, as in previous passages He had indicated indirectly, His 
consciousness of freedom from sin — and this it is alone which 
really concerns us. 

Two objections have been raised against this testimony of 
Jesus. In the first place, it has been said that it is of a merely 
subjective character, and furnishes in itself no objective proof of 
His actual sinlessness. In the second place, it is alleged that it 
is purely negative, expressing simply a consciousness of the 
absence of sin, not the consciousness of a positive perfection of 
life. But neither of these two considerations forms an argument 
against the validity of the testimony. 

With regard to the former. If we are to attain to an assured 
conviction of the sinlessness of Jesus, it is only possible on the 
supposition, that above all others, He Himself possessed such a 
€onviction. It was only from Himself that the idea could go 
forth to those around Him. He Himself knew best what was in 
Him (2 Cor. ii. 10), and only in the lively expression of His own 
self-consciousness, could the opinion which others formed con- 
cerning Him, find its stay and strength. There can be no doubt, 
that the self-consciousness of Jesus must at the same time find in 
His conduct and His life its objective vindication, and such a vin- 
dication is not awanting : but what we have presented to us in 
this connection, would be unreliable and insecure, were it not that 
it rests upon the witness of Christ Himself. In actual works 
must the vindication consist ; but the testimony itself might be 
given in a simple word of assurance. Every assurance concern- 

Himself to possess it ; and His sinlessness was a proof of His possession of the 
truth. 

With regard to modern comments on this passage, the exposition of Tholuck, 
in his Com. on John (6th Ed, pp. 232-3) is note-worthy. He thinks that the 
correct meaning of the word here is sin, but confines it to sinning within His 
sphere of office; so that Jesus intended to say, " Have I in anything acted 
contrary to the IvrsXss of the Father ?" There does not seem to be any very 
cogent arguments in favour of this opinion. 



102 



THE SINLESSNESS OF CHRIST. 



ing one's spiritual condition has in it something of a subjective 
character; but this circumstance does not in the least degree 
diminish its value, when it is spoken by an intelligent and truthful 
man, because, from the very nature of the case, it cannot be other- 
wise. The assurance Jesus gives bf His freedom from sin, even 
when considered as simply subjective, entirely satisfies us when- 
ever we assign to it its proper place, and regard it not as consti- 
tuting the whole evidence of his sinlessness, but only an integral 
portion of it. A part of the evidence it is, doubtless, which we 
could not dispense with, but one which has its full import only 
when viewed in connection with the rest. 

The adversaries of Jesus in those days urged in opposition to 
His testimony, that it was given by Himself : " the Pharisees said 
unto Him, Thou bearest record of Thyself, Thy record is not 
true" (John viii. 13) : and in modern times the same objection has 
been raised. 1 Now, it is true that a man's testimony of himself 
in a matter like this, taken by itself and not otherwise corro- 
borated, would not be held sufficient under any circumstances,, 
and in any relations. But when it is asserted that, in a case like 
the present, it is of no value whatever, an attempt is made to 
transfer, in a most illogical way, a principle of law to the 
domain of morals, and to apply a presumption gathered from the 
darkest experience of life, and one which is in daily life regarded 
as an insult among men of honour, to Him who has called Him- 
self the King of Truth, and in " Whose mouth was found no 
guile." 2 Again, it has been maintained 3 with even less founda- 
tion that, on the supposition that it is sin that is spoken of in the 
passage before us, Jesus intended to say of Himself nothing more 
than what any honest man, who led a life in conformity with the 
law, might say as well as He : " Nobody could point to any sin 
he had committed." But, in this case the expression would lose 

} Fritzsche Commentary, i. 24. 2 Hase Streitschriften, iii. 109, 11<X 

3 Fritzsche Comment., ii. 2, S. 4.-6, 



THE SINLESSNESS OF CHEIST. 



103 



all its significance, and be utterly unworthy of Jesus. Jesus 
could not seek in worldly-wise security to hide Himself behind 
the legality of His actions, in so far as these happened to be known 
to those present. No : w^hen, in the consciousness that in Him 
the external and the internal action and motive were in fullest har- 
mony, He maintained the general impossibility of convincing Him 
of sin, He meant at the same time positively and confidently to 
affirm the purity of His moral consciousness, that His conscience 
was free from guilt, His inner life unstained by sin. 1 

With regard to the second point : it is true that, when in the 
passage in John Jesus affirms of Himself that He is free from 
sin, this is in the first instance a merely negative statement, but 
the positive affirmation which comes in as supplementary to it is 
not wanting. We do not dwell upon the fact that sinlessness 
from its very nature, especially as existing in a sinful world, is 
utterly unattainable apart from its counterpart, a perfect life ; 
but we refer to those sayings of Christ Himself, by which that 
expression in John is rendered positive and complete. 

Jesus characterizes Himself in words of deepest import, whose 
meaning it is impossible to explain away, as the Way, the Truth, 
and the Life (John xiv. 6) : and in these words He calls upon us 
to acknowledge, that in His person the typical manifestation of 
the true life is presented. He says (John iv. 34), that it is His 
meat to do the will of Him that sent Him, and to finish His work. 
He testifies (John viii. 29) that He does at all times the things 
which please the Father, that He never seeks His own will, but 
always the will of the Father, (John v. 30.) He holds Himself 
up to us as the glorifier of the name of the Father in the world ; 
who sanctifies Himself for His own, who has overcome the 
world, and imparts a peace which the world cannot take away. 

1 Lucke Comment, zu Johannes, 2 Aufl. ii. 299. Be Wette Exegetisches 
Handbauch, iii. 118, and Wesen des Christlichen Glaubens, § 53, S. 272. Hase ) 
as above, iii. 109. 



104 



THE SINLESSNESS OF CHRIST. 



(John xiii. 31, xiv. 33, xvii. 4, 19, xiv. 27.) These are expres- 
sions which present to us the picture of a life, which not only had 
in it no place for sin, but more than this, which can only be 
thought of as an actually perfect life. 1 There are especially two 
significant passages which come under consideration here: the 
one is, " I and my Father are one" (John x. 30) ; and the other, 
" He who hath seen Me hath seen the Father, (John xiv. 9.) 
If, with reference to the former of these passages, it be disputed 
whether the unity implied in the words, " I and the Father are 
one," is to be understood as a unity of nature, a unity of power, 
or a moral unity : still, for our purpose, it matters not which 
explanation of the words be chosen, for every kind of oneness with 
God is determined by that union which we have to do with here — ■ 
by moral union, by unity of will. When the will, the whole moral 
nature, is turned away from God, whether in its source or in its 
outward manifestations, in a word, in any one relation whatever, 
there can be no oneness with God in any sense ; on the other 

1 There are other passages usually quoted as expressing the testimony of 
Jesus concerning Himself, such as Matt. iii. 15, v. 17, and vii. 11. 

With regard to the first, Matt. iii. 15 (" Thus it becometh us to fulfil all 
righteousness,") it can scarcely be brought forward as a testimony of Jesus to 
His sinlessness, and this for various reasons. First, the word li^ocica-Omv has not 
in this verse a directly ethical import ; then, the expression does not refer to 
Jesus alone, but includes the Baptist, fy^y; and, moreover, there is here no 
statement of what was really true, but merely of what ought to be, (<z%ixov.) 

Neither in the second passage (Matt. v. 17) is there any statement of what 
had already been accomplished ; besides, the reference there is not so much to 
a perfect fulfilling of the law, as to a confirming of the spirit of the law. Christ 
came not to destroy the law, but to fulfil it in its spiritual substance. 

The third and last passage is Matt. vii. 11 (" If ye then, being evil, know 
how to give good gifts unto your children, how much more shall your Father 
which is in heaven give good things to them^that ask him ?')* But u^s/V, xovnz&l 
Svtbs form only an antithesis of men in general, and of the hearers of Christ in 
particular as sinful creatures, to the holy God. "We find here no immediate 
reference to Jesus Himself, as if, by the word He meant expressly to 

exclude Himself from the sinful men. — (See further remarks on this passage in 
Weber's Programme.) 



THE SINLESSNESS OF CHRIST. 



105 



hand, when union with the Divine will exists, there must also, of 
necessity, be perfect freedom from sin. 

" For how could One in whom there remained only the least 
trace of sin say, that He was One with God, the Father of 
light ; with Him who alone is good and pure ; with Him whom 
anything resembles in that degree in which it participates in 
goodness and purity." 1 But not only does the expression in ques- 
tion preclude the presence of sin, it includes, moreover, the exist- 
ence of perfect goodness : for wherever there is union with God, 
there holy love must also exist and operate, — which is the seal of 
the Divine nature, and the moving power to everything that is good. 

Similar is the case with regard to the other passage ; " He 
that hath seen Me hath seen the Father." Certainly we are not 
to restrict these words so as to mean merely that there was in 
Jesus something Divine along with what was imperfect and sin- 
ful, as there is in every man. They must be taken in a far higher 
and fuller sense, viz., that Jesus was morally and mentally an 
image of the invisible God, a reflection of the Divine Majesty, 
an expression of the Divine nature. But it is only a character of 
stainless purity and unsullied holiness, that can be a spiritual re- 
flection of God : where sin exists, the Holy One cannot be seen : 
where the Holy One is seen, there neither sin nor any imperfection 
can exist. 

There can therefore be no doubt that Jesus bore within Him 
the consciousness of being sinless and holy; and that to this con- 
sciousness He gave repeated expression. If we will not acknow- 
ledge the validity of a self-testimony of so peculiar a character ; if 
we will not in simplicity lend our confidence to those sublime words, 
there remains nothing for it, but to declare Jesus to have been 
either a fanatic or a hypocrite. If we choose the former alter- 
native, we must suppose that Jesus drew no very clear line of 
demarcation between good and evil; that He did not examine 
i Schleiermaeher's Festpredigten, B. 1, S. 97. 



106 



THE SINLESSNESS OF CHRIST. 



every fold of His heart, or know all the motions of His will, or 
severely pronounce judgment upon every speech and action of 
His life. In a word, we must believe that He was a victim to 
the vainest self-deception, when He uttered those memorable 
words. And is this conceivable in the case of One who on every 
other occasion, — let me only call to mind the Sermon on the 
Mount,- — could distinguish with such incomparable precision be- 
tween good and evil ; whose thoughts about God and man were 
so noble and so clear ; whose keen vision pierced to the remotest 
depths of the nature of men, and whose feelings on all moral sub- 
jects were so singularly sensitive and refined? Is it possible 
that He who knew others so well should have been ignorant of Him- 
self ; that He knew all in others, while to Himself he remained 
unknown ! Can it be that He, who was the first to bring perfect 
purity of moral consciousness to humanity, did not Himself pos- 
sess the gift of .moral decision ? But even this He did not require 
in order to know what every man knows of himself. He would 
thus form a strange exception, even to human knowledge. For 
no other man, even the most borne, or the most darkened, would 
ever entertain a doubt that he is a sinner: was Jesus then a 
sinner, and alone ignorant of the fact ? Was it as the victim of 
a fanatical illusion that He claimed the dignity of a holy being f 
Or, if such conclusions are too absurd to be entertained, we 
must be prepared to accept the other more fearful alternative. 
He was conscious of transgressing against the Divine law we 
must suppose, in thought, word, and deed, and yet He expressly 
denied it. But who is there that would be ready to undertake 
the defence of such a position, and to maintain that He, who, in 
all the circumstances of His life, acted from the purest conscien- 
tiousness, and who at last died for the truth upon the cross, was 
after all nothing more than an abject hypocrite ? How could it 
be that He, of whom even the least susceptible must confess, that 
there breathed around Him an atmosphere of purity and faith, 



THE SINLESSNESS OF CHRIST. 



107 



should have fallen into an antagonism with Himself so deep and 
so deadly ? Since then, by abandoning ourselves to our own 
conjectures, we would only land in irreconcileable contradictions, 
let us yield our faith to the simple assurances of the most 
honest and intelligent witnesses of the truth. We come into 
the possession of many of the highest spiritual blessings, only 
by a free act of confidence, that is, by faith : and only thus can 
we retain them. And surely He, whose whole life rests upon the 
principle of the fullest confidence in humanity, deserves this trust 
from us. For it was only the assured conviction that human 
nature, — kindred to God, even when alienated from Him and 
involved in sin, — was still capable of good, that could move Him 
to labour for the moral renovation of the race. It was His un- 
failing faith in the ultimate triumph of good in the world, that 
gave Him strength to persevere unto the end, often amid circum- 
stances in which bitter experiences seemed to foretell the ultimate 
failure of His gracious purposes. As no one, in pursuing schemes 
of philanthropy, ever encountered such fierce opposition as He 
did ; so no one had ever better reason to despise mankind. And 
yet He preserved even to His dying breath a faith in the inde- 
structible element of divinity in humanity, as no one had ever 
done before. Even upon the cross to which men had nailed Him, 
He did not despair of man, and His dying prayer bore a won- 
drous testimony to this undying faith. In that same spirit of 
confidence with which He came to seek us, must we seek Him. 
If he, the High and Holy One, never lost sight of the godlike that 
yet remains in human nature ; surely it becomes men, who are by 
Him restored to God, to recognize and hail with joy the divinity 
which was manifested in His most glorious life : nor will they 
indeed fail to do this, so long as there exists within them any 
even the faintest susceptibility to what is holy. 



PAET SECOND. 



CHRISTIANITY ITSELF A PKOOF OF THE SINLESS- 
NESS OF JESUS. 



PAET SECOND. 



CHRISTIANITY ITSELF A PROOF OF THE SIN- 
LESSNESS OF JESUS. 

In showing the decisive importance of the testimony of Jesus con- 
cerning Himself, we took occasion to observe that, as that testi- 
mony is primarily of a subjective character, it necessarily requires 
to be supplemented by its objective counterpart. If it be true that 
the testimony of other men is invalid, unless supported by the ex- 
press declaration of Jesus Himself; it is no less certain that the lat- 
ter is inadequate to establish the fact of His sinlessness, unless it be 
substantiated by a corresponding connection of historical events. 
" If I bear witness of Myself," said Jesus, " my witness is not 
true," (John v. 31.) Where, then, do we find the objective cor- 
roboration of this self-testimony ? We find this, partly in the 
impression which Jesus made upon those with whom He came 
into direct, personal contact ; partly in the effects of His appear- 
ance generally in the Christian world. The impression He pro- 
duced has been described, in its leading features, in the former 
Part of this Treatise : we have now to consider more closely the 
general effects of His manifestation, in so far as they are con- 
nected with His sinlessness. 

By the effects of which we here speak, are to be understood 
those which belong to the domain of morals and religion. And 
here, it is not so much anything special that is referred to : we 



112 THE EVIDENCE FROM CHRISTIANITY ITSELF. 

would direct attention rather to what constitutes the leading 
characteristic of the Christian world, to what forms the funda- 
mental peculiarity of mankind as fashioned by Christianity, and 
what thus distinguishes the followers of Christ from all those who 
lived before He came, and from all who have lived beyond the 
sphere of Christian influence. For although the renovating in- 
fluences of Christianity have extended over the whole domain of 
human life, the central point of all these influences still is what 
belongs to the province of morals and religion taken in a narrow 
sense : to its morally-religious character it is that we have to 
look for the distinctive features of Christianity. The effects 
which come into consideration here are of importance for our 
object, only when they are such that the sinlessness of Jesus is 
their necessary condition or originating cause ; when it can be 
shown that there have been, within the Christian circle, actual 
manifestations, which can be explained in a natural way only on 
one assumption, viz., that the Author of Christianity was a Being 
of sinless holiness ; and that if we refuse to make this assump- 
tion, these manifestations must remain entirely inexplicable. 

In order to establish this, we shall distinguish the religious 
element from the moral. But we do not draw this distinction in 
the sense of regarding morals and religion as constituting sepa- 
rate provinces in the domain of Christian life. On the contrary, 
we think that one of the leading features and leading excellencies 
of Christianity, is just that it completely unites the two elements : 
a peculiarity of our religion, which will be further illustrated when 
it falls to be considered in relation to the Sinlessness of its Founder. 
At the same time, as the religious element admits of being distin- 
guished from the moral element, as cause from effect, and as in 
treating of them, they may be kept apart : we shall commence, 
by viewing each separately ; and, in the first place, let us con- 
template Christian life from its moral side, as this affords us more 
undisputed and self-evident positions from which to set out. 



THE NEW MORAL LIFE IN CHRISTIANITY. 



113 



CHAPTER I. 

THE NEW MORAL LIFE IN CHRISTIANITY. 

The moral effects of Christianity have been prominently brought 
forward by apologists of all ages, and especially by those of 
modern times. And an unbiassed investigation of the subject 
will place beyond a doubt the following facts : that Christianity 
produced in individual believers (that is, in those who were 
deservedly so called) a rich supply of virtues ; and that these 
were, partly, virtues of which men had previously no conception 
whatever, or, at all events, no ideas so high and pure as Chris- 
tianity imparts. Such virtues are Humility and Meekness, but 
especially the self-denial of labours of compassionate and minister- 
ing Love. Nor has Christianity exercised a less salutary moral 
influence upon the common relations of human life. In marriage 
and the family, in the condition of civil and political life, in the 
relation of ranks, castes, and nations to one another, and, in a 
word, in the whole condition of the race, it has laid the founda- 
tion of a state of society truly worthy of man. Then, it has 
achieved all its triumphs, effected all its improvements, not from 
without or by force, but freely and from within. And how ? 
Chiefly thus, that within the sphere of Christianity there was 
established by actual fact, and realized as had never been realized 
before, the free, Godlike personality of man, and the equality of 
all in the sight of God. All this points very significantly to the 
wealth and the depth of the moral powers of the Christian faith. 
For the source of those powers, we must of necessity go back 
to the Founder of Christianity ; and this fact is itself a strong 
testimony to His having filled a singularly prominent position in 

H 



114 PROOF FROM THE EFFECTS OF CHRISTIANITY. 



the domain of morals. But if we refer specially to the doctrine 
of His sinlessness, we shall find that what has been said is appli- 
cable here only in one leading point, namely this : that all those 
moral manifestations disclose to us the grand truth that Chris- 
tianity has produced something new in the moral world, — that the 
individual character which is moulded by its influence, and also 
the humanity which it forms, is a new moral creation, which from 
its peculiar character points us to a moral perfection entirely free 
from sin in the Power from which it has received its existence. 

The thought of a new moral creation is one entirely peculiar 
to Christianity ; but not the less is it indispensable to its perfect 
consistency and completeness. This the Apostle Paul expresses 
in a most forcible and pregnant manner wiien he says : "If any 
man be in Christ, he is a new creature ; old things are passed 
away, behold, all things are become new," (2 Cor. v. 17.) It is 
only on the supposition that Christianity imparts an entirely new 
principle of life, that its fundamental doctrine of regeneration has 
any significance ; and this doctrine implies that the old man of 
sin is destroyed, and the new man, created according to the will 
of God in knowledge and true holiness, comes to life. But this 
is not a mere idea, a mere dogma, but an actual fact. The words 
of the Apostle are not a dogmatic formula, they are spoken from 
the deep experience of his life and of his heart ; and every one 
who like him has come within the sphere of Christian life, can, if 
not with the same measure of experience, still to some extent, 
make those words his own. Por every living Christian possesses 
the consciousness that Christianity has begotten a new life in him. 

And what is an essential and indispensable feature in the life of 
the individual Christian, is at the same time true of the whole 
of Christendom ; for it is a fundamental principle of Christianity 
itself. It is also manifest that the Christian religion is a new 
phenomenon in the moral world, and has introduced a principle 
entirely new, Before the entrance of Christianity into the world, 



THE NEW MOKAL LIFE IN CHRISTIANITY. 



115 



the dominant religion was in the Heathen world a surrender of 
the individual life to that of nature : here there was no real con- 
sciousness of sin. In Judaism, again, the ruling principle was 
a consciousness of sin produced by a law given by a God of 



necessary to overcome it. If it be true that in the heathen 
world the life of nature, in the case of individual nations, was ele- 
vated and ennobled into something truly beautiful ; if even cer- 
tain great prophetic spirits were enabled to rise above its limits, 
—still, upon the whole, mankind in the heathen world was as 
much under the dominion of nature as were their heathen divini- 
ties. This subjection mind might ennoble, but could not over- 
come. Again, in the Jewish world there was indeed, along with 
a consciousness of sin, also the belief in grace; but still the 
Jewish people were under the curse of sin, which might be dis- 
covered and restrained by law, but which law was incapable of 
removing. Now, Christianity has at once broken the power of 
nature and delivered from the curse of law. The spirit, made 
free by a power within, rises above the bondage of a life of 
nature, 1 and at the same time attains an assurance of one clay 
obtaining a perfect mastery over sin. Thus is begun a new era 
in the moral life of the world. There comes into action the prin- 
ciple of a life, born not of nature but of God, which has for its 
ultimate issue a complete deliverance from sin, — perfect sinless- 
ness ; and which possesses a pledge that this end will one day 
be attained, in the power which it is conscious of receiving from 
its Divine source. Do we now inquire what must be the origin- 
ating cause of that new creation which we find in the moral life 
of the Christian world ? In seeking an answer to this question, 
we might feel at first tempted to go back to the moral ideas 
peculiar to Christianity, i.e., to Christian Ethics. Now Chris- 

1 See a passage on this subject in Jean Paul's Vorschule der Aesthetik, B. i. 




§23. 



116 PROOF FROM THE EFFECTS OF CHRISTIANITY. 

tianity has undoubtedly an ethical system of the noblest kind, of 
incomparable purity, depth, and completeness ; it far transcends 
everything that the heathen world has to point to in this connec- 
tion ; its principle and spirit far excel the loftiest ideas of the 
Old Testament economy, and there can be no doubt that this of 
itself is a fact of great importance for our purpose. For these 
ideas of Christian Ethics are the expression and result of the 
moral spirit which existed in the Founder of Christianity, and 
thus they afford a testimony to the purity and dignity of His 
moral teaching. But if we are thus compelled to argue from the 
doctrine to its Author, this is still more the case when we look 
beyond the doctrine to the original source of those influences 
which have produced so mighty a revolution in the moral world. 
And this primary source is not the doctrine of Jesus, but His 
Person. This is necessarily the case : for it is not any doctrine 
which calls into being a new life ; it is only life which can gene- 
rate life. New moral characters are not formed by means of a 
moral law or moral ideas, but only through the power of a great 
moral character. [The incomparable excellence of Christianity 
is, that it presents ideas in the form of facts. It is distinguished 
from all other religions in this, that it is at once Idealism and 
Realism. This characteristic is enlarged on by the Dutch writer 
Meyboom in his treatise : De ideis et rebus in facto positis, in 
re Christiana apte conjunctis. Groning. 1840. See especially 
pp. 55-173.] And we have for this the most decisive testimony of 
Christian experience. The same Apostle who uttered that 
sublime saying concerning the new creation, says also, when he 
wishes to describe the primary source and fountain of his life, 
" I live; but not I, but Christ liveth in me," (Gal. ii. 20.) And 
in that most significant passage which we have made the basis 
of these remarks, he affirms, that any one is a new creature, not 
because he walks according to the doctrine of Christ, but because 
he is "m" Christ, i.e., personally united to Him (2 Cor. v. 



THE NEW MORAL LIFE IN CHRISTIANITY. 



117 



17) j 1 and in this the Apostle expresses only what is the experience 
of every true Christian in every age. For all Christians must 
acknowledge that it is not from an idea, a doctrine, or a law, 
that they have drawn, or do draw, the regenerating power, but 
from the personal life and the living personality of Christ, — that 
Christ which has grown up within them, or has at least been 
born within them. 

Now this new life, in which the principle of sin is destroyed 
and the earnest of its perfect subjugation bestowed, springs in 
its deepest source from a fellowship with a real personality. 
Hence the further question naturally arises : In what way must 
such a personality have been constituted, to make it capable of 
imparting a regenerating power to St Paul, and to all those whose 
experience has been like his ? And to this question we must 
answer : It cannot have been a personality in itself sinful, for then 
it would have differed from other men only in degree. It would 
still have partaken of the old nature. It would not have real- 
ized in itself an entirely new creation ; and thus it could not have 
prepared the way for a new moral birth. On the contrary, it 
must have been a personality raised above all connection with 
the old nature; one in which the power of sin was entirely 
broken ; which was itself in the highest sense a new creation, 
and was thus in a condition to produce the deep renovating effects 
which a perfect ideal being alone could produce. 

It may here be objected, that if Jesus was really without sin. 
His sinlessness would have produced also in those who came 
within the influence of His life a similar freedom from trans- 
gression : but neither in the Apostles, nor in the Christian world 
generally, do we find this to have been the result of His appear- 

1 The formula u vis h X^trrd must not be robbed of its living significance by 
making it a mere abstract reference to Christian doctrine and truth ; but, as 
the words themselves and the connection in which they occur require, they 
must be referred to the concrete Person of Christ. 



118 PROOF FROM THE EFFECTS OF CHRISTIANITY. 

ance. In reply, let the following considerations be pondered. 
In the first place, we find in the Apostles and in all true Chris- 
tians a certain resemblance to Christ in this respect ; and this is 
here of the greatest importance : we find that in them the prin- 
ciple of sin was in fact broken, and they felt assured of its 
complete and final overthrow. And this furnishes an indication 
of the fact of a mighty and decisive victory already achieved 
over sin. If, in spite of this conquest of the principle of sin, 
it is still found operating in their lives, this circumstance only 
impresses upon us the conviction, that the cause is not to be 
found in any inadequacy in the purifying and sanctifying in- 
fluence which Christ exercised upon them ; but rather in the fact, 
that sin had penetrated too deep into their nature to be destroyed 
all at once, — or otherwise than by a gradual process of cleans- 
ing. We are thus led to conclude, that in order to be ever more 
and more and at length perfectly freed from sin, all that is re- 
quisite is a complete surrender to the renovating influence of 
Christ : a conviction which can rest upon nothing else than a 
certainty of the fulness and boundless efficacy of that holy, sinless 
life, which dwells in the person of Jesus. 

Thus, on the supposition that the Pounder of Christianity was 
not without sin, it is impossible to understand how a morality of 
so pure and perfect a stamp as that which characterizes our re- 
ligion, could derive its origin from such a being, or how it could 
express its peculiar character in such words as these : u 01d things 
are passed away, all things are become new." If, on the other 
hand, we suppose the Author of Christianity to have been alto- 
gether without sin, then it is easy to perceive how, within its 
sphere, a new creation should come to perfection in the moral 
world by His being formed within the individual believer, and in 
the Christian world. 



THE NEW RELIGIOUS LIFE. 



119 



CHAPTER II. 

THE NEW RELIGIOUS LIFE. 

The moral element in Christianity has, nevertheless, its founda- 
tion entirely in the religious. Indeed, wherever we find a peculiar 
feature in the domain of morals, we are sure to find its counter- 
part in that of religion. This is especially true in the case be- 
fore us. If the Christian feels in his inmost soul a consciousness 
that morally he is a new man, that old things are passed away 
and all things are become new, then his position with reference 
to God must have been changed, and his life renewed in a reli- 
gious point of view. The dominion of sin cannot be broken, and 
the power of a new life cannot be attained, unless its guilt has 
been first abolished, and the foundation laid of a right standing . 
m relation to the holy God. Now the words which express all 
that belongs to this circle of ideas are these two : Reconciliation 
and Redemption, These two things constitute the fundamental 
consciousness of the Christian world, regarded in a religious 
point of view : for the Christian world is what it is, essentially, 
because it is conscious of being reconciled and redeemed. 

Here, then, we see clearly the connection between the foregoing 
and what falls now to be considered. It must be evident to every 
one that the efficacy of the reconciliation and redemption must con- 
sist in the sinless holiness of Him who achieves it ; and that it is 
only on the supposition that the Reconciler and Redeemer is 
sinless and holy, that it can be explained. In order, then, to make 
this clear, it is not necessary that we should give any detailed ex- 
position of all the doctrines which belong to this part of our subject ; 
it will suffice to confine ourselves to a few of the principal points. 

It has been shown in a previous chapter 1 how by sin man cuts 
himself off from God, the true source of his life ; how he thereby 

1 See Part L, chap. L, On Sin. 



120 PROOF FROM THE EFFECTS OF CHRISTIANITY. 

enters into a condition of hostility towards God ; and how, by- 
reason of the enmity against God that springs up within him, he 
loses all true life and falls a prey to depravity. At the same 
time, it is self-evident that a holy God cannot stand on the same 
terms with sinners as with the righteous and the good. On the 
contrary, while the latter experience His love and favour, the 
former must fall under His displeasure and wrath. The feeling 
of guilt which excludes the sinner from all peace and joy of life 
is a further confirmation of this truth. In these circumstances, 
the supreme necessity of man is to be restored to fellowship with 
God. What he wants above all things is to return to God ; to 
know that God looks on him in grace, and to look with an eye of 
filial confidence to God. But man can never by his own unaided 
efforts attain to this, because he is separated from God, and, 
moreover, " bound and tied by the chain of his sin." There must 
therefore be some interposition of which God is the author, and 
this interposition is what we call Reconciliation. But a reconci- 
liation, in order to be satisfactory, must be one in which sinful 
man is really and actually delivered from the bondage of sin, by 
having implanted within him the principle of a new life. This 
deliverance, not only from the guilt but also from the dominion 
of sin, combined with the implantation of a new principle of good- 
ness, is what we call Redemption. We thus see how intimately 
and inseparably reconciliation and redemption are connected. 
The redemption, if it is to be solid and secure, must be founded 
upon a reconciliation : for it is only when the guilt of sin is re- 
moved that its power can be destroyed, and a delight in goodness 
can spring up in its place. The reconciliation, if it is to be real, 
must of necessity lead to redemption : for it is only when sin is in 
truth destroyed and a new life begotten in the soul, that the re- 
demption can be perfect, can be of a nature truly moral. 

The need of Beconciliation and Bedemption has in ail ages 
been felt by man. It was experienced in the heathen world, 



THE NEW RELIGIOUS LIFE. 



121 



although there a deep consciousness of sin was wanting : but in 
the Jewish world this feeling is found to exist in a much more 
special and remarkable degree. Yet it is only Christianity that 
can satisfy this want, and satisfy it in an adequate, decisive, ex- 
haustive way. Christianity is pre-eminently the religion of Re- 
conciliation and Redemption. And the cause of this is sufficiently 
apparent. What constitutes a true reconciliation is not a mere 
symbolical communication of Divine Love to the sinner, but a 
real and actual communication : and that of such a nature, that 
it enters the sphere of human life as a moral power, and there 
becomes a principle of renovation. It is not enough that the 
true relation between God and man should be typically fore- 
shadowed ; it must be actually restored, must be realised in a 
concrete, and at the same time a perfect way. It does not suffice 
that God should give to men the assurance of His grace ; He 
must actually offer Himself to them as a God of grace. It is not 
enough that men should see a pledge of His grace ; they must 
be placed in a condition to receive that grace itself into their 
heart, as revealed to them in love. Now this is what none of 
those religions, which have existed either before the manifesta- 
tion of Christianity or beyond its pale, presents to us. Their sacri- 
fices and other ceremonies were only the means of reconciliation, 
which might indeed suffice to calm the feeling of guilt for a time, 
but were unable altogether to remove it. And the reason why the 
sense of guilt could not be taken away by such means is, that there 
was in them no real communication of Divine love, and no truly re- 
novating principle of love. Hence they were an attempt to atone 
for sin without accomplishing an actual redemption from sin. 
A true reconciliation can only be effected when it is brought 
about, not by any such means, but by a person : by one who per- 
fectly satisfies the conditions requisite to a typical embodiment of 
the true relation between God and man, of an actual revelation of 
Divine love inseparably conjoined with His work as a Redeemer. ' 



122 PROOF FROM THE EFFECTS OF CHRISTIANITY. 

Now, if we find this (and it is manifest that we do find it) in 
the Christian religion alone, and if Christianity is essentially the 
religion of reconciliation and redemption, which seeks to lead 
humanity back again to a new life of holiness in God : then it is 
not difficult to discover that the Author of such a religion must 
himself be of a perfectly sinless and holy character. The true 
relation of man to God can find its realization only in one in 
whom sin, which is the ground of separation between man and 
God, has no place. The real manifestation of Divine grace can 
exist only in one in whom the one spring of action is the fulness 
of love which he derives from perfect fellowship with God, and 
in whom this forms the principle which regulates his whole life. 
The power of a new life in God can proceed only from that 
source in which all the creative power of this life lies. Now 
this is the idea of a sinless and holy personality. Were there 
not at the head of the Christian religion such a Being, it were 
inconceivable how it could be eminently the religion of reconcilia- 
tion and redemption, or how the deep-rooted consciousness of 
being reconciled and redeemed should have come to form the 
fundamental belief of the Christian world. With such a Being 
at the head of Christianity, this is at once explained. Now, if 
the consciousness of being reconciled and redeemed, possessed by 
the Christian world, has any reality, then that from which it 
emanated must also have had a real existence. And that that 
consciousness had a real foundation rests equally upon an actual 
fact, — on a fact which every Christian practically experiences. 
The doctrine of the sinless holiness of Jesus is therefore as secure 
as is the truth of the efficacy of His work of reconciliation and 
redemption. Whoever will deny the former must also deny the 
latter : and as for the phenomenon of Christian piety in its most 
characteristic peculiarity, he must either pronounce it something 
altogether inexplicable, or regard it as a vain illusion. 



MORALITY AND RELIGION UNITED IN HOLINESS. 123 



CHAPTER III. 

MORALITY AND RELIGION UNITED IN HOLINESS. 

A third point remains to be discussed. Not only have Mora- 
lity and Religion been both presented under a new aspect by 
Christianity, but it has effected an interpenetration of the moral 
and religious elements such as formerly did not exist. This 
blending of the moral and religious is what in the domain of 
human life we call Holiness. In Christ the idea has been fully 
realized : here also we shall learn to appreciate the peculiar 
dignity of Jesus, and be led to apprehend the sinless perfection 
of His character. 

There can be no doubt that we discover a reciprocity of action 
between Religion and Morals even beyond the province of Chris- 
tianity. All true piety finds expression in moral actions, and all 
deep morality is in one way or another based on piety. To con- 
ceive of either apart, fully severed from the other, would be to 
have, on the one side, a piety either inwardly diseased, consist- 
ing in mere contemplation and mere emotion, or one of words and 
outward service only ; or, on the other hand, we should have a 
morality which was nothing but mere legality, perhaps strict 
and rigid enough, but still nothing more than a heartless and 
austere virtue. But the question is not here of a greater or less 
degree of reciprocal action between morals and religion, but of 
a perfect fusion of the two, of a thorough oneness by means of 
which piety developes itself in energetic moral action; while 
moral action, on the other hand, springs from, and is imbued with, 
a spirit of pure love to God. This is what we call Holiness. It 
is the condition in which man is in such a relation of living fel- 



124 PROOF FROM THE EFFECTS OF CHRISTIANITY. 

lowship with God — who in His very nature is holy — that all the 
actions of his life are expressions of the Divine Spirit by which 
he is influenced, and of the Divine love with which he is filled ; 
and good is purposed not from any motives of a selfish or merely 
human kind, not for the sake of good itself, but for the sake of 
God, in whom, as the highest good, all other goodness is loved. 

And thus we draw a distinction between holiness as a quality 
in man, and holiness as an attribute of God. In God it forms a 
part of the Divine nature itself : it is His absolute willing of 
what is good, which has its source in His most perfect know- 
ledge ; it is His continual determining of Himself as the highest 
good, which manifests itself outwardly in His abhorrence of evil, 
in stainless purity and irreproachability, and at the same time in 
unintermitting endeavours to destroy evil, and entirely extirpate 
it from the province of created life. In man, on the other hand, 
holiness arises only from communion with God the All-holy : in 
him it is exposed to temptation, and only by a process of deve- 
lopment can he attain to it. And yet in his case we can con- 
ceive a development which, after finally triumphing over temp- 
tation, might issue in a state in which the possibility of evil 
should be altogether abolished by the ceaseless willing of what 
is good, and goodness should become his second, his true nature. 
In this state, man would be in the fullest sense the image of God, 
and then religion and morality would be no more thought of as 
distinct from each other, but both would be included in the 
one idea of a holy Love, acting as a principle impulsive to all 
deeds of goodness. 

But where shall we find such a holiness as this ? Where is 
the idea of holiness revealed in its full brightness ? Where is it 
presented as a reality to our thoughts, to our contemplation ? 
Evidently this has been done in Christianity, and in it alone. 
Christianity was the first to disclose to man the realized idea of 
holiness in the Person of its Founder. 



MORALITY AND RELIGION UNITED IN HOLINESS. 125 

We do not say that, in the period anterior to the Christian 
religion, there are no fair exhibitions of moral piety and pious 
morality : indeed, we know that the commandment was already 
given to men to be holy as God is holy. But nowhere do we 
either find the idea of holiness carried out to its full perfection, or 
even the conviction that it could be realized within the circle of 
human life. Nor is this want merely accidental : on the con- 
trary, it forms an element in the whole moral and religious con- 
dition of the ante-Christian world. 

And first, with regard to the Heathen world. Although we 
cannot altogether deny the existence of piety in the Pagan world, 
still it was undoubtedly wanting in that piety which has in it full 
moral vigour. Nor could it indeed be otherwise ; for Paganism 
is essentially the religion of nature, and rests upon an identifica- 
tion of the Divine with the natural. And this prevented the 
recognition of the Divine Being as a God of necessity and from 
His very nature, holy, or even as essentially moral : from a belief 
in such a Divinity no truly moral influences could go forth. 
Similar is the case with the Heathen world in relation to morality, 
Heathenism is by no means absolutely destitute of morality : but 
that morality which has its source in love to God is unknown, be- 
cause the Divinity Himself is not recognized as holy Love. 
Hence the prevalent idea of morality was, that it consisted in 
doing justice and acting up to the call of duty, in obedience to 
the laws and a steady adherence to the customs of the father- 
land. Now, where the ideas both of morality and of religion 
were so deficient, it is impossible that the thought of their com- 
bination in the idea of holiness could have been attained. 

Again, with regard to Judaism. The Jewish religion has 
clearly the idea of holiness strongly stamped upon it. It knows 
a holy God ; it requires a walk and conversation according to His 
example ; it gives forth the moral commandments as an expression 
of the Divine will concerning man. But the conception of holi- 



126 PROOF FROM THE EFFECTS OF CHRISTIANITY. 

ness, much as it forms the central-point of that religion, yet ap- 
pears not in its full power and purity, because in it the principle 
of love is forced into the back-ground by that of righteousness. 
But the principal want of Judaism in this respect is, that it can 
present no adequate realization of the idea of holiness. Holiness 
remains something unattainable, something at a distance ; essen- 
tially it exists only in God, and to men it appears only as a re- 
quirement, as Law, commanding, threatening, and punishing, but 
incapable of quickening or blessing. And this arises from the 
very nature of the case. For if the principle of love has not 
found its perfect expression in the revelation of the holiness of 
God, it is impossible for men to know the power of Divine love, 
and thus to be partakers of that holiness whose only source is the 
love of God. 

It is otherwise with Christianity. There both elements — reli- 
gion and morality — receive their due ; they are, moreover, com- 
bined in unity, and their union is holiness. This holiness is not 
presented to us as something ideal, something postulated ; we 
see it as a thing actually existing, displayed to us in the life of a 
real, personal being. Christianity also gives to piety and to 
morality, respectively, the full honour due : to piety, in securing to 
it the highest position of authority and rule in the inner life ; to 
morality, in setting it forth as the highest end to be attained in 
the outer life. At the same time, it embraces them both in all 
points as one : for it knows nothing of a piety which does not 
sanctify, which is not of an entirely ethical character, seeking to 
subdue and to transfuse the whole life ; or of a morality which does 
not rest upon a living faith, which is not thoroughly religious. 
This union gives, as has been said, the idea of holiness. But it 
is something more than the idea that Christianity gives. It has 
not merely conceived the highest idea of holiness in its connec- 
tion with the new revelation of God as holy love ; but (and this 
is the principal thing) it regards holiness not as something un- 



MORALITY AND RELIGION UNITED IN HOLINESS. 127 



attainable, far beyond the grasp of humanity, but as already 
really implanted in humanity, — as an idea which, from the time 
of its first perfect manifestation in the Person of its Founder, 
is destined to be realized ever more and more within the Chris- 
tian Church. 

Shall we now inquire a little more particularly how this change 
has taken place I Soon, if we pursue our investigation in a spirit 
of sober-mindedness, we shall perceive that it has not been ac- 
complished in a theoretical, but in a practical and historical way, 
Everything points us to the person of Jesus. It is from the time 
of His manifestation, and in connection with the whole history of 
His life upon earth, that there arises in all its dignity and com- 
pleteness the idea of that holiness which is holy love ; which, as 
holy love, includes in it everything that is high and noble. Then, 
too, it was, that the conviction in the possible realization of that 
idea began to exist within the sphere of human life. It is self- 
evident, that this conviction could rest on nothing else but the 
firm belief in the sinless and perfect character of Jesus. But, 
moreover, we must take into account that it is with facts that the 
higher and fuller development of this idea is connected, accord- 
ing to the testimony of history. And the great fact is this : that 
in the life-manifestation of Jesus, the entire fulness of holy love 
was in very truth revealed ; that in Him there was given a life- 
picture of holiness which supplies an entirely new standard of ex- 
cellence in this field. If this be true, this affords a testimony to 
His sinlessness ; for all those effects are quite unintelligible if con- 
sidered as produced by a person hi whose life sin had a place, 
and can be explained only by the profound impression made by a 
personality of sinless purity. 



128 PROOF FROM THE EFFECTS OF CHRISTIANITY, 



CHAPTEE IV. 

THESE EFFECTS CAUSED NOT BY AN IDEA BUT BY A FACT. 

Now it may be said, that in order to account for all that has 
been adduced in this part of our argument, it is not necessary to 
admit that a sinless being actually lived upon the earth : that 
the mere representation of such a life, the mere belief in it even 
without any corresponding object, would have been perfectly ade- 
quate to produce the same effects. 

This is the view of a spiritualism which flees from the regions 
of reality, that it may dwell apart in a world of ideas ; a spiritu- 
alism which seeks to resolve all life into mere intellectual concep- 
tions. But in truth mere ideas do not possess the power of 
creating a new life, from reality alone can reality come ; and, 
unless we are prepared to declare that the whole religious and 
moral life of the Christian world is nothing but a collection 
of ideas — instead of recognizing therein a reality, (such as we 
have ourselves experienced,) we must admit a corresponding 
reality in the source from which it springs, for " nothing can be 
in the effect which was not previously in the cause." 

But we ask, whence is it supposed that the representation in 
question, or (if we prefer to give it that designation) the idea of 
sinless perfection, has itself been derived ? In every other case 
we find that reality and life come first, — from them it is that the 
representation and conception are derived: first, there is the 
really-existing object ; then, the idea of that object. But here a 
conception is supposed to precede, which not only has no source 
in original life, but also which has nothing in real life which in 
the least corresponds to it. And how are we to account for the 



CAUSED NOT BY AN IDEA, BUT BY A FACT. 129 



circumstance, that it was just at that very point in history that 
this thought appeared in the world in so marked a character, 
and with so transforming a power, while we find nothing at all simi- 
lar either at any other time, or at that time in any other place ? 

We have already repeatedly called attention to the fact, that 
the thought of sin was by no means so very common among men 
that it had only to be applied at once to Jesus ; but that, on the 
contrary, it was first developed in and by the appearance of 
Jesus Himself. This is now the place to investigate this more 
closely. The fact is of no small importance, For if, on the one 
hand, we either do not find anything like a definite conception of 
the idea of sinlessness in the world previous to the appearing of 
Christ and beyond the circle of Christian influence, or, where the 
thought occurs, we find inseparably connected with it the convic- 
tion, that in no case could the thing be, or a perfectly sinless 
human being ever exist upon earth ; and if, on the other hand, 
we see that in Christianity, not only is the idea itself most clearly 
defined, but, more than this, the belief exists that it has been 
actually realized in the life of a certain individual : we are ne- 
cessitated to draw the conclusion, that between these two things 
there must be some connecting link of great importance, that 
with Christianity some mighty change has taken place in this re- 
spect ; and the only natural explanation of it is in the admission 
of the fact of the realization of the idea of sinlessness in the Per- 
son of Jesus of Nazareth. 

But it is not enough that we lay down this general state- 
ment. The position must be historically proved ; and, in order 
to do so, it is requisite that we direct our attention to certain 
particular points. 

We have already seen that the reason why the heathen world 
could not conceive the idea of pure holiness, was principally two- 
fold : on the one hand, there was the want of a sufficiently pro- 
found moral spirit ; and still more, there was the positive element 

I 



130 PROOF FROM THE EFFECTS OF CHRISTIANITY, 

of immorality which disfigured their system of Polytheism. For 
where the Divine patterns themselves were regarded as unclean, 
there could assuredly be no place found within the province of 
frail, imperfect humanity for a stainless, and absolutely perfect 
virtue. But, notwithstanding this, there was a wide range of 
thought in poetry and philosophy, which rose far above the 
limits of the national religion ; and here we undoubtedly find the 
expression of a high moral consciousness. The tragic poets, 
especially Sophocles, present us with pictures of a virtue as 
sublime as it is pious and attractive ; and those philosophers 
whose systems are borne up by a spirit of morality, naturally ap- 
proach somewhat to the idea of a perfection of moral life in holi- 
ness ; — because it is scarcely possible to go at all deep into the 
philosophy of moral subjects without verging upon this idea. 
None of the sages of antiquity is more noteworthy in this re- 
spect than Plato. In the second book of his Republic, he draws 
a sketch of a righteous man, in which he represents perfect inte- 
grity as necessarily conjoined with suffering. In this, every 
thoughtful reader will at once be reminded of the noblest in- 
stance of suffering virtue that we know of : and truly this must 
be regarded as one of the remarkable anticipations of Christianity 
to be found among the deep utterances of that prophetic spirit. 1 
In opposition to the unrighteous man — who, however, let it be 
remembered, disguises himself in the garb of integrity in order 
the better to carry out his ill designs — Plato places the humble 
and truly upright man, who, in order that righteousness, and the 
purity and devotion of his love of righteousness, may be fully 
tested and more illustriously exhibited, does not even appear 
as a righteous man, nor is owned as such, but is made to suffer 
as an evil-doer. This righteous man is thus described : 2 " With- 

1 Plato's Works, edited by Schleiermacher. Third edition, vol. i. Notes, p. 

535. 

2 Plato de Republica, L. ii. P. iii., vol. 3L, pp. 65 and 66 of Bekker's edition. In 



CAUSED NOT BY AN IDEA, BUT BY A FACT. 131 

out having done any unrighteousness, he still wears the appear- 
ance of being unrighteous, in order that he may be thoroughly 
proved to be righteous, inasmuch as he is unshaken in his in- 
tegrity by the slander and other ills that thence arise ; but, on 
the contrary, he remains stedfast and constant even to death, 
having all his life been regarded as unrighteous, though in truth 
righteous." Then with regard to his end he makes the following 
prediction : " He will be bound, will be scourged, will be tortured 
and blinded, and, after he has endured all possible evils, he will 
at last be hanged." Now it is very certain that we have here 
presented to us the picture of a high and noble virtue, and, what 
is especially worthy of note, it is virtue unobtrusive and suffering, 
virtue in the form of a servant. But, seen from the Christian 
point of view, it must be confessed that we here miss two things. 
In the first place, the idea of virtue given here is entirely restricted 
to uprightness ; no reference is made to that inward religious- 
ness by which virtue rises into holiness. Second — and this is a 
still more important consideration : — all this is only a conception, 
a creation, a thought ; nor do we find any certainty to exist that 
such virtue was ever truly realized in its manifold perfection in 
the actual life of man. 

We find a remarkable expression in the writings of one who 
had before him the whole period of development of the ancient 
world. Cicero says expressly, that " he at least had never found 
a perfect wise man :" on the contrary, he says, the philosophers 
are all at variance as to " what kind of a man such an one would 
be, if ever he were to exist." 1 And the fact, that in the passage 

Schleiermacher's edition, as above-, pp. 128 and 129. Compare on the passage, 
Baur in his Apollonius von Tyana u. Christus, S. 163-166. 

1 1n the well-known passage in 2d Book of the Tusculan Disputations, where he 
speaks of triumphing over pain, and says that the pars inferior, the molle, de- 
missum, humile in man, should be governed by the domina omnium et regina 
ratio. Here he says, ii. 22 : In quo erit perfecta sapientia — quern adhuc nos qui- 
dem vidimus neminem : sed philosophorum sententiis, qualis futurus sit, si modo ali- 



132 PROOF FROM THE EFFECTS OF CHRISTIANITY^ 



In question he refers merely to one phase of moral greatness? 
viz., the power to triumph over grief, is only a stronger corro- 
boration of our position, For if, in this particular mark of great- 
ness,— of which antiquity, and especially the heroic age of Rome, 
furnish us with many brilliant examples,— Cicero doubted as to 
whether any man could attain perfection, how much more 
would he have called in question the possibility of the complete 
realization in humanity of perfect Virtue ! The accomplished 
Roman was certainly well qualified to pronounce such a judgment? 
and we are therefore warranted in regarding these words of his 
as the expression of the enlightened consciousness of the ancient 
world generally 0 

And in truth there did not exist in all the heathen world one 
individual with whom men might have associated the idea of 
moral faultlessness. Perhaps there is no man of antiquity to 
whom, in this matter, one's thoughts would more readily turn 
than Socrates : and yet, although we possess such glorious de- 
scriptions of that great man, drawn by his revering disciples, still 
neither they nor any one else has ventured to maintain that he 
was absolutely free from moral blemishes—was, in a word, a per- < 
feet man. There does indeed occur one passage in Xenophon's 
Memorabilia, 1 where he says of his master, that " no one ever saw 
or heard him do or say anything wicked or impious ;" but the 
slightest reflection on the idea of this whole apology, and espe- 
cially on the context in which those words occur, will lead to the 
conclusion, that it is merely outward actions that are spoken of 
here, — external morality, without any reference to inward purity. 
And even if the words were used in a much wider sense, we 
should still be left without the self- witness of Socrates himself, 

quando fuerit, exponitur—is igitur, sive ea ratio, quaz eritin eo perfecta et absoluta, 
sic Mi parti imperabit inferiori, ut Justus Jrarens probis filiis. 

1 Xenophon's Memorabilia, Lib. i., cap. i., § 11. QvliU l\ xwxen iM^rovs 



JAUSED NOT BY AN IDEA, BUT BY A FACT. 133 



which is here of the last importance. Indeed it is indispensable, 
for only he could thoroughly know himself. And yet we may 
say, without doing Socrates any injustice, that he would scarcely 
have applied to himself the words of the Redeemer : " Which 
of you convinceth me of sin?" While in Christ every action 
flowed directly from the pure consciousness of God within, all 
that the demons of Socrates did was to warn him against certain 
actions. This of itself forms an important difference. 

It is not to be denied that the picture of a perfectly wise man 
is presented to us, not merely as an idea but as actual fact, even 
within the sphere of paganism, in the life of Apollonius of Tyana 
as represented by Philostratus. But then, the influence of Chris- 
tianity is clearly discoverable here, and indeed the whole life is 
nothing but a copy of Christ translated into Pythagoreanism 
and Platonism. " In the place of Him whom we regard as the 
manifested Redeemer of the world, we have here a sage who 
labours indeed by precept and example, but is no living form, has 
no independent existence, but is merely the feeble, shadowy re- 
flection of a living original. If in Christ the divine and the 
human, the typical and the historical, are combined together in 
a perfection of nature, then assuredly as much in the character 
of Apollonius as has truth and reality in it comes far below the 
idea that it seeks to imitate, while that which seeks to approach 
this idea ceases to have any foundation in real life." 1 

The conclusion, then, to which we must come on a closer inves- 
tigation of the subject is, that there was prevalent in the heathen 
world a conviction that moral perfection and faultlessness is a thing 
which it is impossible for man to attain. This is clearly expressed 
in the words of one who, equally with Cicero, may be regarded 
as uttering the sentiment of the whole heathen world : we refer 

1 Baur, in his work, Apollonius of Tyana and Christ, or the relation of 
Pythagoreanism to Christianity, p. 162. (Tubingen, 1S32.) We give the re- 
sults of his learned researches in so far as they relate to our subject. 



134 PROOF FROM THE EFFECTS OF CHRISTIANITY, 



to Bpictetus. In his writings there occurs a highly important 
passage, in which he puts forth the idea of moral stainlessness 
with sufficient clearness ; when, however, he comes to ask the 
question, whether it be possible that it should ever be realised? 
his answer is : No, it is impossible ; all that is possible is constantly 
to strive after a state of not sinning. 1 

Such is the state of matters in relation to the question which oc- 
cupies us here, in the spiritual high-places of the heathen world. 2 

We might have better reason to expect to find the idea of a 
perfectly sinless holiness in the Monotheistic religions. For, in 
the first place, along with their doctrine of the unity and spiritual 
nature of God, these systems have a much clearer conception of 
His holiness than we find in the religions of Polytheism. Besides, 

1 The words of Epictetus (iv. 12, 19, ed. Schweigh.) are: T/ ov v ; tw*ro* 

MvotfLcaiqT'yiTOV iTvoct Yi^\ 'Afjcyiftctv av' ocXX iz&ivo Svvoirov, tr%6£ to [jlti ci{/,cigTdtvU* 

TzratrSoii lifivijcu?. We may also mention here an epigram which occurs in 
Demosthenes de Corona (p. 322,) which ascribes the privilege of doing every- 
thing right to the gods alone : 

'Eiv (Btorvj, [/,otga,v ov ri tpvyav t&ogtv. 

2 The expressions acvoc/^a^Tyio-ioc and kv^yu^^rviTo^ occur early in the language 
of classical antiquity, but at first with reference merely to external relations. 
In Xenophon and Plato, ava^^ro? is used of one who has not acted wrongly, 
or who cannot so act, in the outward affairs of life. (Plato de Hepubl. Lib. i., 
•rorigov £s ocvotfAKgrviTol ufiv ol a.%x,ovri?, »j oloi ts xod ccfjuzgroLvzw.) The moral mean- 
ing is more clearly stated by Diogenes Laertius (vii. 122) and Epictetus, (i. 4, 11, 
iv. 8, 6. For that remarkable passage in which he maintains that it is impos- 
sible for man to be faultless, see iv. 12, 19.) 'Av«Afc*gw/» also occurs with the 
same various meanings ; see Stephan. Thesaur. Ling. Gr., vol. ii., p. 1920, ed. 
Lond. As a technical expression, denoting faultless morality and sinless holi- 
ness, &v*f6«gr?j0'/« especially, belongs to the language of Christianity : ocvot,/u,u$- 
tktos does occur once in the New Testament, John viii. 7, but there more with 
reference to a special transgression. It is the Fathers who, after the example 
of Hippolytus and Clement of Alexandria, have given the word the specific 
meaning it now bears (Clem. Psedagog. iii. 12) : See supra, Introduction, Sec- 
tion 2. For expressions of the Fathers — of Isidorus of Pelusium, of Chrysos- 
tom, of Basil — see Suicer in his Thesaur. eccles. ii., pp. 287 and 288. 



CAUSED NOT BY AN IDEA, BUT BY A FACT. 



185 



Judaism held fast the hope — at least in prophetic anticipation — 
that its Messiah was to be a perfectly holy servant of Jehovah, 
(Isaiah liii. 9.) And yet neither of the law-religions of Mono- 
theism, — neither the Mosaic, preparatory to Christianity, nor the 
Mohammedan, which was partly an imitation of the Christian 
religion, but still an apostatized branch of it, — offers anything like 
a clear and full representation of the idea of sinless holiness : 
much less is there implied in either of them a belief in the realiza- 
tion of that idea in any human being. If this thought is to be 
found in their religions, we must chiefly look for it in their 
founders : but neither Moses nor Mohammed lays claim to freedom 
from sin ; they never even rose to this conception ; nor did the 
adherents of their faith ever honour them as sinless beings. 1 With 
regard to Mohammed, the Koran makes no secret of the fact that 
he was guilty of failings, and he himself makes a mandate go 

1 The prerogative of sinlessness has never been laid claim to on behalf of 
Moses. The falsity of such an idea would at once have been shown by a refe- 
rence to the murder of the Egyptian, Exodus ii. 12, and to the feelings which 
the recollection of this deed left in the mind of Moses. 

Much less s can sinlessness be predicated of Mohammed. On this point the 
reader is referred to the Contributions to a Theology of the Koran by CEttin- 
ger (Tiibinger Zeitschrift fiir Theologie, Jahrgang, 1831, 3tes Heft S. 62, 63), 
where we find the following observations : " Nowhere in the Koran do we find 
the idea of sinlessness applied to a human being. Reference might indeed here 
be made to the passage (12, 53) where Joseph says : " I will not acquit myself of 
guilt, for every soul inelineth to evil, save him on whom God has compassion." 
But all that is meant to be expressed in these words is, that every man will sin 
unless God's mercy hold him up, which by no means implies that any one may 
be wholly free from sin." Still more decidedly is this point argued by Gerock 
(Christologie des Koran, Hamb. 1839, S. 100, 101.) It is there shown that in 
the Koran Jesus is indeed held up to imitation as a moral ensample, but neces- 
sarily without the predicate of sinlessness, since even Mohammed, who is greater 
than He, confesses to the commission of mistakes and precipitate actions. At 
one passage God says to Mohammed (Sur. 48. B. 1 and 2) : " We have granted 
thee a decisive victory, in order that Allah may forgive thee thy sins both past 
and future." Again (Sur. 40, B. 57) Mohammed is reminded : "Pray for the 
forgiveness of thy sins." (So also S. 80, B. 1, seq., S. 4, B. 104.) 



136 PROOF FROM THE EFFECTS OF CHRISTIANITY, 



n3 



forth from God commanding him to pray for the forgiveness of 
his sins : many reputed prayers of his have moreover been pre- 
served in the traditions of his followers, in which he asks of God 
the forgiveness of his sins. 1 But besides this, in the case both of the 
founder of Islam and the lawgiver of the Old dispensation, not only 
would their lives have belied the predicate of sinlessness, but such 
an idea would have been inconsistent with the whole character of 
their religious institutions, and incompatible with the nature of 
their peculiar work as founders of religious systems. Both of 
them, although in different ways, laid the foundation of states, 
and both were leaders of armies ; and thus they were too much 
addicted to the use of force to allow of their preserving that 
purity of aim and action of which he alone is capable who, re- 
maining within the domain of religion and keeping himself from 
the contact of civil life, employs only spiritual weapons to repel 
every assault, even the most unrighteous : the shield of integrity 
^ and the sword of love. Again, we called the religions of Moses 
^,and Mohammed Law-religions, because their whole doctrine, their 
: whole institution, is based on law. Now perfect holiness belongs 
to a higher sphere than law. Perfect holiness is not mere lega- 
lity : it is a free, unconstrained love of goodness, flowing from the 
principle of love to God : hence it can exist only in him to whom 
no law is given, 2 because of his own free choice, and in obedience 
to the impulse of his nature, he freely performs the noblest deeds. 

This is then historically the state of the case. On the one 
side there is a Plato, who describes the righteous man as great 
and pure indeed, but still as nothing more than an ideal picture, 
having no connection with reality. There is a Cicero, who calls 
in question the possibility of the realization of perfect wisdom. 
There is an Epictetus, who has a clearer idea of what sinlessness 
means, but is at the same time convinced of the impossibility of 
its ever being carried out in actual life. On the same side stands 
1 Gerock, in the work already quoted, p. 101, Note. 2 1 Tim. i. 9. 



^1 



CAUSED NOT BY AN IDEA, BUT BY A FACT. 



137 



the founder of the Old Testament dispensation, who himself laid 
no claim to the possession of spotless righteousness, neither have 
his followers regarded him as perfectly sinless. There is also 
that greatest prophet of the ante -Christian age, who had indeed 
an anticipation that the idea of holy purity would be realized, 
but not till a future time, when it should be seen in the servant of 
God. And lastly, there is the founder of Islam, who himself 
confessed his moral defalcations, and who even lives in the tradi- 
tions of his followers as one who owned his faults and prayed for 
their forgiveness. These on the one side. 

On the other side stand the plain, simple-minded Apostles, them- 
selves reckoned neither among the poets nor the philosophers, in 
whom we find not only the idea of sinless holiness most clearly de- 
fined, but also in whom faith in its actual realization in the person 
of Jesus has become absolute certainty, strong enough to conquer 
the world and death ; further, we find that they have given a 
description of the pure and holy life of J esus which has led other 
men to share their belief, and which must, even to this very day, 
be regarded as a picture of the most perfect character in the 
domain of religion and morality that can anywhere be found. 

What conclusion shall we then draw from all this ? Shall we 
conclude that the Apostles (like the God of Plato, who formed 
the world after the ideas which he contemplated, 1 ) first looked on 
the idea of perfection and holiness, and then drew from that the 
picture of Jesus as the representation of all human excellence ? 
But then it were necessary to prove, in the first place, that that 
which they are supposed to have thus contemplated, had for them 
real existence ; and we have just seen that the opposite was the 
case. It were necessary first to make it appear credible, that 
simple men would have had such faith in a production of their 
own imagination (which they took for something real,) that they 

1 A comparison which Strauss has made the foundation of the whole of his 
Christology. 



138 PROOF FROM THE EFFECTS OF CHRISTIANITY, 

could sacrifice for its sake all that men usually hold dear : and 
in this there is a manifest contradiction. The following reason- 
ing appears to be much more simple, much more consistent with 
history : If an idea arose in all its clearness in the minds of the 
Apostles, which the great thinkers and poets of antiquity were 
either ignorant of, or saw but dimly, this can be accounted for 
only by the manifestation of a real life ; and if those who till then 
had regarded faultlessness as a thing unattainable by man, had now 
the strongest belief in the reality of a sinless life, the cause of the 
change could only lie in the overpowering impression produced by 
that life itself, seen unfolding itself before their eyes. We will, 
however, have all the more confidence in the correctness of this 
conclusion, in proportion as this view of the historical part of the 
subject corresponds with the nature of the case itself. The idea 
of a sinless perfection of life does indeed belong of its very nature 
to the human spirit, and forms the foundation of the whole of its 
laoral development ; nevertheless, according to the laws of moral 
life, there will be no clear, full, and living consciousness of it, and 
consequently no belief in its realization, so long as sin is the 
ruling power in humanity. Hence, if the idea is to be unveiled, 
lucid — and life-giving, and if along with it there is to be the firm 
conviction of its realization, — we are entitled to draw the con- 
clusion, that this has taken place as the result of an actual con- 
quest of sin, and a real manifestation of a holy and perfect life. 
We say then : it is not possible to think otherwise than that He 
who called forth in His contemporaries, and through them in 
the Christian world, a belief strong and stedfast and capable 
of transforming their whole life, in an altogether pure and holy 
virtue, was Himself in very deed a perfectly pure and holy Being. 

Let us now glance at the results arrived at. It has been seen 
that all that is recorded in the Gospels of the relation in which 
men the most differently constituted stood to Jesus, — the hatred 



CAUSED NOT BY AN IDEA, BUT BY A FACT. 



139 



of foes, the bearing of the indifferent, the confession of the traitor, 
the undying love and reverence of His friends, — all furnish a tes- 
timony to the moral greatness of Jesus. This testimony is cor- 
roborated by the general moral impression which Jesus produced 
upon those with whom He came in contact, — an impression which 
is moreover expressed in a full, minute, and uniform life-picture, 
and thus becomes for us a guarantee of a life not only morally 
sublime, but also perfectly pure and holy. This testimony re- 
ceives, further, its full force from what Jesus says of Himself, from 
those clear expressions of His own self-consciousness which inti- 
mate a purity and dignity of moral character, and, in closest 
connection therewith, an assurance of perfect oneness with God, 
such as can only be accounted for on the supposition of the actual 
existence of perfect holiness of character. But this is not the 
whole. The impression which the life of Jesus called forth, and 
the expression which He gave to His own consciousness of inward 
purity, do not stand isolated and alone, but are borne up and 
attested by the world- embracing effects which He has produced. 
These effects have influenced the moral and religious life of huma- 
nity in the individual and in the mass ; and they are of such a 
character as can be comprehended only by admitting the holy 
purity of His person, for only by an individual of sinless holiness 
could they have been caused. For what are these effects ? Tfrey 
are the complete renovation of the moral life, the assured con- 
sciousness of redemption from sin, and the implantation of the 
element of holiness in man, which rests upon the conviction that 
this holiness has in truth appeared among men as perfect love 
and as close and unbroken fellowship with God. 

In these testimonies and these facts we have every evidence 
that can reasonably be demanded of the truth of His sinless 
purity. Neither sensible nor mathematical nor logically-incon- 
trovertible certainty can be reached at all in this province : and 
the effect of the evidence we have adduced concerning Christ, 



140 PROOF FROM THE EFFECTS OF CHRISTIANITY. 

has in all ages depended upon the degree in which the mind is 
susceptible to it, and the heart capable of being religiously and 
morally affected, and willing to believe in the reality of what is 
noble and true. Hence, as in the reception of all super-sensible 
truths there is an element of faith required, and therefore doubt 
is not absolutely excluded, so is it in this case too. Consequently, 
in spite of all evidence, objections have been raised against the 
sinless character of Jesus, and these objections it will now be our 
task to examine. 



PART THIRD. 



OBJECTIONS, 



PAET THIRD, 



OBJECTIONS. 

Among theologians of more recent times, some have merely been 
sceptical in regard to the sinlessness of Jesus ; others, again, 
have decidedly called it in question, and have advanced argu- 
ments in support of their position which are important enough to 
require a close consideration. We are all the more inclined to 
enter upon this discussion, because the questions which here arise 
have not customarily been treated with fulness and connected- 
ness. 1 

The objections which have been raised, may in a general 
way be classed as follows :— one class rests on a denial of the 
actual sinlessness of Jesus ; the other on a denial of the possibility 
of sinlessness at all in the sphere of human life. In the former 
case the sinlessness of Jesus is impugned, partly, on the ground 
of its being inconsistent with that idea of a gradual development 
which we have to apply to Him in reference both to His 
character and His work ; partly, as at variance with the idea of 
temptation ; and partly, on the ground of distinct utterances and 
facts recorded of Him. In the second case, the objections to the 
sinlessness of Jesus are drawn, on the one hand, from experience, 
on the other hand, from the very nature of the idea of sinlessness 
and the mode of its realization. These last objections are there- 
fore partly empirical and partly speculative in their nature. 

1 For a more cursory view of these questions, see Lutz. Biblische Dogmatik, 
pp. 294-299 ; and Schumann Christus, vol. i., pp. 289-296. 



144 



OBJECTIONS. 



Adopting this classification, our attention will be drawn first 
to that which is special, then to that which is more general,— first 
to the less important, and afterwards to that which is more im- 
portant. That doubt is of less moment, and does not directly 
assail the character of Jesus, which hints that if He passed 
through a development at all He must have begun in imperfec- 
tion and have risen gradually to perfection : we shall find it 
harder to reconcile it with our idea of sinlessness, that Jesus could 
have felt inwardly drawn towards evil when exposed to tempta- 
tion : but the strongest objection wonld be a really immoral utter- 
ance or deed. But even supposing all that might be urged 
under these heads were answered, it would be useless if it were 
possible, incontrovertibly to prove that sinless perfection is alto- 
gether impossible in the region of human existence, if experience 
or the nature of the moral idea, witnessed unanswerably against 
its realization in a human being. 

These are the difficulties which meet us here. In endeavour- 
ing to surmount them in the order above given, we shall of 
course labour to keep duly separate that which is essentially dis- 
tinct ; but since objections of both kinds glide to a certain de- 
gree into each other, many difficulties must needs be touched upon 
in the first part, and the more complete solution of them be re- 
served to the second. 



ARGUMENTS AGAINST SINLESSNESS OF CHRIST. 145 



CHAPTEE L 

ARGUMENTS AGAINST THE ACTUAL SINLESSNESS OF JESUS. 

If we pass by altogether, in the first instance, the question as to 
whether or not sinlessness be possible in humanity, and, assuming 
for the time its possibility, ask only — Was Jesus actually sinless ? 
— then our business is with facts, and if these facts are to be 
disputed, other indubitable and opposite facts must be set over 
against them. With this view certain parts of the Gospel nar- 
ratives have been adduced. Foremost, however, in this aspect 
attention has been called to the development which took place in 
the life of Jesus, i.e., to what is termed His progress from a state 
of imperfection to one of perfection, by which, it is urged, the 
idea of absolute perfection is excluded. This has been made use 
of in two ways, — in relation, first, to the person of Jesus, and 
second, to the Messianic plan. We must examine both aspects 
of the argument more closely. 

SECTION FIRST. 

THE DEVELOPMENT OF THE PERSON OF JESUS. 

The Scriptures speak undeniably of a growth in wisdom in Jesus, 

consequently of progress in mental culture : and no less distinctly 

do they intimate that His moral nature became gradually perfect. 

And were this not clearly taught in single passages, 1 it would 

1 For the intellectual growth of Jesus we have the classic words, -r^oixo^n 
roQtet, Luke ii 52 : for His growth in moral perfection there are several passages in 
the Epistle to the Hebrews ; see especially chap. ii. 10-18, where the words fyxwh 
&<« x<x.9'/>pot,TM Ti\uu<r<x,i occur, and chap. v. 7-9, where we meet with the expres- 

K 



146 



ARGUMENTS AGAINST THE ACTUAL 



naturally follow from the view taken by the Apostles of the entire 
life of Jesus as being perfectly human in its character. But if 
Jesus did advance intellectually and grow in moral perfection, 
surely it argues His culture of mind and heart defective in the 
beginning, and thus excludes original and symmetrical perfection. 

To this we reply : — Of course, so far as Jesus lived a human 
life, we are bound to maintain that His development was a gradual 
one. This we cannot refuse to admit. But growth and in- 
crease do not necessarily involve transition from a state of greater 
to one of less deficiency, — do not presuppose an inner antagonism 
of sin, or an overcoming of the religious and moral error con- 
nected therewith. All that they really imply is successive deve- 
lopment, development according to time. And surely we are 
able to conceive of a perfectly normal development in thoroughly 
natural conditions, as being the free unfolding of healthful 
energies, 1 whose native fulness constitutes them self-sufficient. 
The idea of growth involves only this, — that the being which 
is subject thereto belongs to the region of the finite; for the 
development of the Absolute does not take place in the form 

sive phrase, s^0sv tjjv vkkzoyiv. Compare Scholten Oratio de vitando in Jesu 
Christi historia Docetismo, pp. 15-19 ; and De Wette Das Wesen des Christ- 
lichen Glaubens, § 53, p. 269. 

1 The idea of development does not of itself involve the passing through 
antagonisms and conflicts, or, " that at every step in advance the hindrances 
universally presented by evil have to be surmounted, and some one of its dis- 
turbing elements to be reduced to inactivity." This is only true of the develop- 
ment of individuals and of mankind when evil has already gained power over 
them, i.e., when they are, morally considered, in an unnatural condition. " But 
only a slavish dependence on a narrow empiricism, whose inductions will not 
even bear application to the sphere of nature, can lead us to represent the pre- 
sent form of human development as its natural and necessary one. That would 
be a true development in which nothing should ever be lost at a higher, which 
had been once really possessed at a [lower stage ; and simply on the ground 
that there was nothing which it were needful and good to lose, simply because 
at no point was there anything which tended to interfere with or thwart the 
vocation of the being whose development was going forward." See Jul. Muller's 
Christian doctrine of Sin, vol. i. 



SIXLESSNESS OF JESUS. 



147 



of time, i.e., according to the law of succession. But Jesus be- 
longed necessarily to the domain of the finite, as to His humanity. 
We need not, and must not, however, suppose that anything sin- 
ful attached to Him on the ground of this human finiteness, and 
of the kind of development which, according to the Divine order, 
is inseparable from it, — provided only that He was perfectly what 
the nature of that state required Him to be, — provided that that 
which He was potentially became actual in Him in its own proper 
time, and in a normal way. That this was so, cannot indeed be 
positively demonstrated from the whole course of His life ; but, at 
the same time, it would be still more difficult to prove the con- 
trary. Nay more : not only does the later perfection of Jesus war- 
rant us in concluding that the mode in which it was arrived at was 
in general normal, but we have also a particular fact revealing and 
attesting a development of this nature, and exhibiting it palpably 
before the mind. We refer of course to the significant event 
from His twelfth year which has already been mentioned. Here 
the self-consciousness of Jesus comes before us in a form which, 
whilst it is perfectly appropriate to His youthful age, hints in a 
deeply significant manner at the peculiarity of the relation in 
which He stood to the Father. 

This thought of a perfectly normal development does not by 
any means bring us to the confines of the magical and docetical. 
What it points to and expresses, is rather the restoration of 
human nature to its integrity : nature in its primal purity and holi- 
ness. An orderly, faultless development, we must remember, is 
proper to nature when interfered with by no inward or outward 
restraint. At its origin hi God, nature is purity itself. We 
should be on our guard, therefore, against introducing anything 
unnatural into the spiritual culture of Jesus by representing Him as 
premature as a child, and ascribing to Him as a boy the knowledge 
of truth, the moral earnestness and the depth of a man. 1 That 

1 There is not a trace of such monstrosities as these in the sober narrative of 



148 



ARGUMENTS AGAINST THE ACTUAL 



would be a miracle unworthy of God, monstrous and unnatural. 1 
At every period of His existence He realized just that measure 
of intellectual culture and moral life of which human nature is 
at that point capable, and no more. In a word, He was exactly 
and fully what a man can be at each successive step of His life. 
As He was a perfect man, so was He also a perfect boy and 
youth, and of a certainty no stranger to the modes of thought 
and observation which are peculiar to childhood and youth : 
yet all was characterized by a holy simplicity and beauty. His 
progress was like that of a beautiful flower to whose free growth 
there is no hindrance : we should never dream of requiring of 
it that whilst in the germ it should bud, and whilst bud- 
ding, possess the glory of perfect bloom, but only that at each 
step in its development it be in every respect what it then should be. 

the Canonical Gospels, whilst, as is well known, they are to be found in the 
Apocryphal histories of Jesus. See my work, Historisch oder MytMsch ? 
Abschn. iv., especially pp, 216 and 225 ff. 

1 In the Second Part of his Glaubenslehre, p. 178, 1st ed., Schleiermacher 
says : — " If we deny the gradual development of the Saviour, we must either 
hold His whole childhood to have been a mere pretence, and that, for example, 
He was fully master of speech in His first year; or else fall back on the Cerin- 
thian solution of the difficulty, and separate that in which Christ resembled 
other men from that in which He was our Archetype." Olshausen too, in his 
Biblical Commentary, Part i. p. 134, says, " The true view of the Messiah in His 
human development is, that He set before us the successive stages of human 
life in perfect purity and exemption from sin, and yet at the same time in a 
manner which was never out of keeping with the peculiar natural character of 
any period ; which could not have been the case had Jesus, when a child, pos- 
sessed perfect <rc<pU. Jesus was thoroughly a child, thoroughly a youth, tho- 
roughly a man ; and thus He hallowed every step of human development, 
Nothing really out of character was ever seen in Him, as if His sayings as a 
child had been such as befitted riper years." Compare with this, p. 138. 
How far the question touched upon above has been discussed and solved in 
the older programmes of J. Mich. Lange, De profectibus Christi adolescentis ex 
Luc. II 52, Alt. 1699; of Gust. Sommelius, De Jem puero proficients, Lund. 1774; 
and in one published at Jena in 1714, in Ternii Sylloge, pp. 474-484, I am un- 
able to say, not having them at hand. 



SINLESSNESS OF JESUS. 



149 



As little ought we absolutely to deny the existence of what 
was individual and national in the education of Jesus, and the 
influence thereon of external circumstances. Everything human 
is subject to influence of this nature. And if men of genius are 
not essentially moulded and determined by that which comes to 
them from without, but possess the power to employ it for the 
most part as a means to their own development, and to the mani- 
festation of that which is in them by nature, then surely we may 
conceive of a spirit of which this holds true in so eminent and un- 
qualified a manner, that everything tendered by outward condi- 
tions is simply and only means and material of self- development 
— a spirit, which, in the perfectly independent course of its de- 
velopment, appropriates nothing narrow and unworthy, but only 
the helpful, good, and salutary, of all that its external cir- 
cumstances present. Besides, there is less difficulty in believing 
this of Jesus, because the people to which He belonged, and the 
moral and religious character of the family circle in which He 
grew up, were unquestionably well fitted to further such a deve- 
lopment. 1 

What has now been advanced, tends of course merely to 
make plain the possibility of conceiving in Jesus a perfectly pure 
development. But at present this is all we need, inasmuch as 
our only aim at this point is, to show that development does not 
of itself involve sin. The positive certainty that the development 
of Jesus was sinless, must be sought in another direction, namely, 
by proving that it is an unavoidable presupposition, if the 
actual condition and character of Jesus at a subsequent period is 
to be satisactorily explained, and not to seem utterly out of con- 
nection with His earlier life. 

1 See Martensen's Dogmatik, § 141 5 p. 315, whose general course of thought 
I have here followed. 



150 



ARGUMENTS AGAINST THE ACTUAL 



SECTION SECOND. 

THE DEVELOPMENT OF THE MESSIANIC PLAN. 

With still more positiveness, and with greater force, has the 
objection which is based on progress from a state of imperfection 
to one of perfection been urged in relation to the Messianic plan 
of Jesus. 1 Jesus — it has been represented — did not, when He 
first came forth, recognize clearly the aim of His life : His first 
true recognition of it was the result of a catastrophe affecting 
both His inner and outer life. We must of course acknowledge 
that from the very beginning the fundamental feature of His 
plan was the formation of mankind into a community on the 
basis, and by means of, religious love ; but, it is contended^ 
at first there was a commingling of political views and ten- 
dencies, in so far at least as He hoped, by the exaltation of 

1 The phrase, " Plan of Jesus," has in recent times been so much in vogue, 
that it may seem paradoxical to consider it inappropriate ; and yet it is utterly 
inappropriate. The devising of a plan implies an activity of mind which is far 
too strongly individual and subjective to be ascribed to Jesus. So also the 
acting' constantly according to a plan, springs from a one-sided predominance 
of reflection, such as Jesus never betrayed. That which He was commissioned 
to do and to establish was marked out for Him by God and history, and the 
course of events was recognized, not devised, by Him. Hence, although we 
are not warranted in saying that there was no connection between His various 
acts, seeing that in all He did and said He was possessed and inspired by the 
loftiest idea; still, to assume that all He did was deliberately planned and in- 
tended beforehand, in the common sense of the words, reduces Him to a lower 
position than that which He actually occupied, as One filled with the Spirit 
and with God. The older terms, office and work of Christ, have much greater 
congruity than the modern expression, plan. If, however, this term plan, 
having usage on its side, is to be retained, let us understand by it only, as 
Hase very correctly puts it in his Leben Jesu, § 40, " His subjective concep- 
tion of the office to which God had appointed Him, without reference to the 
collateral use of the word in the sense of : what is arbitrarily hit upon, or what 
is the result of reflection." Compare Neander's Life of Jesus, p. 128 ff., 5th 
edition. 



SINLESSXESS OF JESUS. 



151 



Israel, to found a theocracy into which all nations should gradually 
be drawn. Only later in His career, when this notion had 
come into conflict with and been frustrated by the feelings of 
the nation and of its rulers, and its essential unworthiness and in- 
feasibleness been thereby revealed, did there arise in the soul of 
Jesus, and that too not without conflict and subsequent victory, 
the idea of a spiritual kingdom of God. Consequently, we are 
told, it was in virtue of His own inward progress that Jesus was 
transformed from a Jewish Messiah to the Redeemer of the world. 

This view, which even at a former period was broached by 
certain of the learned, has been fully and acutely carried 
out in more recent times. 1 It has been indeed substantially re- 

1 Following" in the steps of Von Amnion, De Wette, and some others, Hase, in 
the 1st ed. of his Leben Jesu, published at Leipzig in 1829, propounded at length 
the thought of a twofold plan of Jesus— of a plan which was at first theocratical, 
and only became purely religious subsequently. In opposition to his view and 
development of the subject, appeared Heubner, in an appendix to the 5th ed. 
of Reinhard's Plan Jesu, Wittenb. 1830, pp. 391-407 ; further, Liicke, in two 
programmes of the year 1831, under the title, Examinatur, quce speciosius nuper 
commendata est, sententia de mutato per eventa, adeoque sensim emendato Christi 
consilio ; and also J. E. Osiander, in his article, Ueber die neueren Bearbeitungen 
des Lebens Jesu von Paulas und Hase, inserted in the Tiibinger Zeitschrift fur 
Theologie, 1831, Heft i., pp. 145-148. My controversy also, in the 2d edition 
of this work, was with Hase. To this opposition, especially as conducted 
by Liicke, Hase, with a noble love of truth, did justice, partly in his Theo- 
logische Streitschriften, Leipzig, 1834, pp. 61-102, and partly in the subse- 
quent editions of his Leben Jesu. He adopted from his antagonists as much as 
his own convictions would allow him, and sought to unite the opposed views in 
the following general result: — " Apart from single political institutions, which 
are by nature transitory, the plan of Jesus undoubtedly related to a moral re- 
formation and a spiritual kingdom ; but still the Divine law, on which He in- 
sisted, and which He put in force, was clearly meant in the course of time to 
subdue the world, or rather to become the highest law thereof, and He, the 
King of Truth, intended to become also a King of the world." One part only 
of his earlier view has Hase retained ; it is contained in the following words : — 
" Jesus must, at one time or another, have examined and rejected those Mes- 
sianic hopes which bore a theocratic character, for the faith of Messiah could 
only reach Him in that form. But there is no proof whatever that He was led 



152 ARGUMENTS AGAINST THE ACTUAL 



tracted by its most distinguished advocate and representative ; 
but having once had an historical existence, and it being possible 
that it may again find defenders, it will be advisable to discuss it 
here as far as may be serviceable to our present object. 1 Our 
observations must not, however, be regarded as having any per- 
sonal references. If this view of the purposes of Jesus were 
established, important consequences would evidently follow. It 
would result in the destruction of that image of Jesus which 
Christendom has hitherto found in its Gospels and preserved in 
its faith, — in the banishment of the idea of a perfectly wise and 
holy Redeemer, who by His spiritual greatness is able to free 
men from error and sin. Looked at in this light, we should not be 
able to feel that Jesus possessed even a high degree of insight, 
much less that He was perfect in intellectual strength. Accord- 
ing to this hypothesis, He must not only in general have struggled 
through error to more correct knowledge, 2 but even through such 

to this examination and rejection by hard experience in the midst of His career, 
and not by the clear judgment of His own mind ere He entered on His work." 
Of course the theocratic idea of Messiah's mission, and even that very worldly 
view of it entertained by His contemporaries, must have presented themselves 
to Jesus, and He must have rejected them by the very act of adopting the 
higher conception. But all this might take place without His cherishing or 
falling into error, without His convictions undergoing any essential change. 
And besides, as Osiander, and with him, Hase, remarks, a great truth under- 
lay the idea of the theocracy, and the theocratic conception of Messiah might 
very well be present to the mind of Jesus without being an occasion or cause 
of error. It is not the mere presence of an incorrect view to our minds that 
makes us chargeable with error, but that which we adopt into our own con- 
victions. See Hase, Streitschr. p. 74. 

1 Neander also, in the Life of Jesus, has fully discussed this point, pp. 129-136, 
5th German ed. 

2 So Hase, in the 1st ed. of the Leben Jesu, § 68. In connection therewith he 
re marks however : — " Error pertains only to the intelligence, not to the dispo- 
sition, and therefore the character of Jesus is not lowered by such a supposi- 
tion : on the contrary it appears the greater, because of the energy He showed 
in overcoming error." On the other hand, we read in the 2d and following edi- 
tions, § 49 : — " A hero who struggles up through error to truth is without 



I 



SINLESSNESS OF JESUS. 



153 



error as might easily have been avoided, had He carefully 
studied the condition of His people before commencing His work. 
Evidently, too, He had not well considered the whole compass of 
His plan ; for what He would have done in opposition to the 
existing Roman authority and rule, when once possessed of the 
highest theocratic power, remains an unsolved, and by no means 
unimportant, difficulty. He had not, in fine, that high, independent 
power of spirit which the moral Deliverer of humanity should 
and must have ; for, instead of fighting His way with a sure step 
through difficulties and hindrances, as one truly self-reliant would 
have done, the unfavourable turn which His affairs took first 
aroused Him to true and proper consideration, and then, in place 
of joyfully and enthusiastically grasping the higher thought that 
dawned upon Him, He fell into sadness and dismay, as He looked 
back on His shattered hopes, and forward to the future in which 
there awaited Him a cross instead of a crown. 1 Such a Christ 
does not control, but is Himself controlled by circumstances : 
He did not distinctly and consciously propose to Himself His own 
aim, but had it gradually formed for, and forced upon Him, by 
events and accidents : He was not the Lord, but the creature of 
the times. If He were the veritable historical Christ, the Chris- 
tian Church would scarcely be able to reverence in Him the Light 
and Saviour of the world. Such an one would not satisfy the re- 
quirements which we are compelled to make of the Redeemer of 
mankind. Such insight into the plan of Jesus as would be 

doubt more interesting ; but he is not better, as a man, than he who has ever 
clearly discerned and undeviatingly pursued his course. Even if the error 
which has been supposed to cleave to Jesus did not tarnish His moral glory 5 
it is difficult to conceive how that brightness and sublimity of nature, that in- 
fallibility and divinity, which we feel in His discourses (e.g. John xiv. 6, in the 
words, " I am the way, the truth, and the life,") could remain unaffected, if He 
Himself rose to the true idea of His life out of such errors, and through such 
inner conflicts." 

1 Hase in the 1st edition of the Leben Jesu, § 84. Differently in the 2d 
and later editions, § 49. 



154 



ARGUMENTS AGAINST THE ACTUAL 



attained in this way, would be dearly bought : happily, however, 
the view presented above has no solid foundation in fact. 

The main support of the opinion that Jesus had at first a 
theocratic plan of the nature just indicated, is His appropriation 
to Himself of the style, title, and character of Messiah ; and the 
Messiah, according to the Prophets, and still more in the view of 
His contemporaries, was to be not only a religious and moral, but 
also a political deliverer. It is urged : — if Jesus did not mean to 
awaken political hopes, He ought not to have given Himself out 
for the Messiah ; but inasmuch as He did call Himself the Messiah, 
the political element must evidently have entered into His plan. 
This conclusion can, however, only be drawn when certain of His 
utterances are taken isolatedly, and apart from their connection 
with the whole of the teaching and works of His life. It is true 
that Jesus did appropriate to Himself the idea of the Messiah, but 
He did so because it was a true and eternal idea : and besides, be- 
cause He knew that He was Himself the promised One, in His hands 
the high religious significance of that idea was brought out, and 
itself thus glorified. In effecting this, it would not have been ex- 
pedient to have begun with theoretical explanations respecting the 
mission of the Messiah. His true course was rather to accom- 
plish the task first of ail in His life, and then to offer Himself to 
the people, as the Messiah, under the aspect which He had illus- 
trated by His most holy life. At the same time, however, from 
the very beginning Jesus declared in divers ways, that what He 
sought to found was a Divine kingdom of piety and love, an union 
of mankind on the basis of a moral deliverance. 

When Jesus spoke of His kingdom, it was equivalent to speak- 
ing of His plan; and at no period of His life did He leave men in un- 
certainty as to the true nature of His kingdom. He ever proclaimed 
it to be heavenly and eternal, — to be one whose commencements 
are within, in the heart, and which is thence to be established 
visibly. This is clear even from the beatitudes of the Sermon on 



SINLESSNESS OF JESUS. 



155 



the Mount : and these were undeniably amongst His earliest 
public utterances. All His parables, too, in which He gave 
expression to His view of the nature of the kingdom of God, are 
of the same purport. In them He taught, with special emphasis, 
that in its development the kingdom of God would be like unto 
the mustard seed, in its mode of operation like leaven. In per- 
fect consistency with this, is the position He assigned to John the 
Baptist as the greatest among the Prophets, but as notwith- 
standing less than the least in the economy of the new kingdom 
of God. 1 Not less in harmony with this representation was the 
whole character and tenor of His life — and it was sublimely con- 
sistent throughout — especially as depicted by J ohn the beloved 
disciple. One whose object was to found a new social order on 
the ruins of the old, must have gone to work in an entirely 
different manner. For such a scheme there were undoubtedly 
abundant materials at hand in His own spirit and energy, and 
in the condition of the nation at that time. Had this been His 
intention, He would certainly have tried His cause by the issue 
of great and decisive enterprises.. As is plain from the words 
of John, When Jesus therefore perceived that they ivoidcl come and 
take Him by force to make Him king, He departed again into a 
mountain Himself alone, (vi. 15,) He despised, and therefore would 
never have contented Himself with a temporary elevation. But 
so far removed was He from anything of this kind, that His 
comparative inactivity, His want of enterprise, would be inex- 
plicable, were the supposition in question correct : His conduct 
then would have been really without a plan. No single measure 
can be pointed out in His course which can be regarded as 
having been distinctly adopted to further political ends. The 
nature of His operations is only intelligible on the assumption 
that, from the very commencement, He had in view the inward 
renewal of humanity. The same observation may be made in 
1 Neander, Life of Jesus, 5th ed., p. 133. 



156 ARGUMENTS AGAINST THE ACTUAL 



respect of His discourses. Where can we find in them a single 
utterance which decidedly announces an external theocracy ? 
The words 1 in which He promised His disciples an hundredfold 
recompense in the kingdom of the Son of Man, and which might 
possibly be made to bear such a meaning, lose even the appear- 
ance of a reference to an external theocracy, and receive their 
sole appropriate explanation as a symbolical representation of 
future glory, when compared with other places in which Jesus 
repels most sternly every ambitious view of His followers, teaches 
them rather to look forward to the most painful conflicts, and 
sets forth the love which is willing and content to serve, as the 
true sign and seal of dignity in the kingdom of God. 

Some have laboured to show that there is a contrast between 
the earlier and later utterances of Jesus, indicative of a change of 
feelings and views. This supposition is based on the fact, that 
whilst at His first public appearances 2 blessings fell from His 
lips, at a later period He poured forth denunciations of the 
cities which had rejected Him. 3 They have likewise inferred, 
from the manner in which He threatened the downfall of Jeru- 
salem, 4 that originally it was His purpose to effect its political 
emancipation, and that He only renounced this design at a 
subsequent period. But there is no solid ground for such 
opinions. Not one of the blessings first pronounced by Jesus 
has remained unfulfilled : as for the curses denounced against 
particular cities, they were the natural fruit of their unbelief. 
Jesus did desire to effect the salvation of Jerusalem and the 
Jewish Commonwealth, but only by means of a moral renewal ; 
and for this His yearning was no less intense at the close than at 

1 Matt. xix. 27-30. " Ye which have followed me, in the regeneration, when 
the Son of Man shall sit in the throne of His glory, ye also shall sit on twelve 
thrones, judging the twelve tribes of Israel," etc. These words belong in all 
probability to the latest period of the life of Jesus, when even the supposed 
theocratical plan must have been already renounced. 

2 Luke iv. 18-24. 3 Matt. xi. 20-24. * Luke xix. 41-44. 



SINLESSNESS OF JESUS. 



157 



the commencement of His career. 1 The only perceivable differ- 
ence is, that as He drew towards the termination of His mission, 
the ardent love He bore to His people expressed itself more fre- 
quently and more strongly in the form of grief at their perversity, 
until last of all there burst forth the prophetic warning, that 
their contempt of inward moral redemption must inevitably result 
in outward ruin. 2 Here was the chief ground of the sadness of 
Jesus, which, although more obvious and perceptible at the close 
of His career, had pervaded His whole life. 3 His was then no 
faint-hearted depression and bitterness because of crushed hopes, 
but a much deeper pain. He was sad, partly on account of the 
degradation of His own countrymen, and partly because of the 
power of evil over mankind generally — the evil which rose to its 
most fearful height when it caused His own death. His sadness 
had undoubtedly special regard to Jerusalem, — not, however, 

1 Compare de Wette, Wesen des Christlichen Glaubens, § 52, p. 288, 

2 Matt, xxiii. 37-39. 

3 Osiander says justly, in the essay quoted above, p. 147 : — " There is no real 
foundation for the assumption of a contrast between the joyousness of the ear- 
lier part of the public life of Jesus and the gloomy seriousness of the later. Did 
not His agonising- end hover distinctly before Him even at the commencement? 
f Destroy this temple,' said Jesus, 4 and in three days I will raise it up John 
ii. 19.) Did not the earnestness and severity of truth thunder out even in the 
Sermon on the Mount against the crowd of unworthy followers ? (Matt, 
vii. 21 ff.) Did He not forewarn His chosen ones of the sore tribulations which 
awaited them ? (Matt. v. 5-12.) Did He not, even in the midst of the joyous 
feast, remind them of the time of anguish when He should be taken from them ? 
(Matt. ix. 15.) And so, on the other hand, did not the peace and joy of 
His great soul flash through the frequent and profound seriousness of the 
later period? What grace and fulness of love overflowed in many of His 
parables ! (Luke xv.) With what assurance of victory did He advance to the 
conflict! How was His spirit glorified even in the farewell interview with His 
disciples ! (John xiii. 17.) The uninterrupted harmony of His inner life is a 
pledge for that of His plan. Nor need we be driven from, or shaken in, this 
position by the psychologically true idea of the successive development of the 
spiritual life of Jesus, for such a development does not necessarily involve and 
suppose inward struggles." 



158 



ARGUMENTS AGAINST THE ACTUAL 



because of any discovery He had made that it was past help of 
a political nature, but because His fellow-countrymen had now 
finally rejected that which would have given them true peace and 
deliverance. 1 His feelings and words were therefore naturally 
occasioned by the condition of things as He found it. If we take 
the opposite view, and suppose that Jesus sank into gloom in 
consequence of the failure of His political scheme, we fall into 
serious difficulties. Such a state of mind would be at variance 
with that dignity and strength of character which we have indis- 
putable reasons for believing that He manifested on other occa- 
sions. 

Having, then, reason to regard the arguments as inadequate 
which have been advanced to show that Jesus had a double plan, 
we rest satisfied all the more readily with the mode of consider- 
ing the matter to which the Scriptures have in all ages given 
rise, and which they justify. They teach us that Jesus declined 
with the utmost firmness all employment of outward means for 
the attainment of His ends, both when entering upon and during 
the course of His mission ; 2 and that He has constantly and dis- 
tinctly showed, by all He did and said, that His aim was the 
founding of a moral and spiritual kingdom. 3 Any charge, there- 
fore, which has been alleged against the greatness and purity 
of the character of Jesus, on the ground of a development in His 
conception of His own vocation, is incapable of proof. 

1 ... roc tr^os sitfvw, — Luke xix. 42. 

2 Matt. iv. 8-11. 

3 Liicke, in his second Programme, p. 5, directs attention especially to the 
improbability that the Apostles, and above all St John, whilst narrating all the 
circumstances which are supposed to have led to the change in the plan of 
Jesus, should never have perceived and hinted at any such alteration in Jesus 
Himself. 



SINLESSNESS OF JESUS. 



159 



SECTION THIRD. 

THE TEMPTATION. 

The very difficult problem now awaits our consideration, 
whether Jesus ever experienced any inclination to sin? Our 
business is specially with the application of the idea of temp- 
tation to Jesus, and the difficulty lies in the question, as to 
whether Jesus could be really tempted and yet remain absolutely 
sinless. Temptation implies allurement to evil: allurement in- 
volves a minimum of evil itself, and that is inconsistent with perfect 
purity. 

We may very easily get rid of this difficulty by refusing to 
recognize one or the other of the two sides which should here be 
held in conjunction with each other : i e., by affirming either that 
Jesus was not really tempted, or that we must not be so precise 
in our view of sinlessness. And there are not a few who do 
either deny the reality of the temptation, or sacrifice the strict 
conception of sinlessness. But the problem is not solved in this 
way. The view taken by the Christian Church originally, in- 
cludes both that Jesus was tempted, and that He was sinless. 
It is therefore the duty of theology to answer the question as to 
whether both can be held safely together, or whether one neces- 
sarily excludes the other. Our proper guide in answering this 
question is the passage in the Epistle to the Hebrews, iv. 15 : For 
we have not a high priest lohich cannot be touched with the feeling of 
our infirmities ; but was in all points tempted like as we are, yet without 
sin. Jesus was tempted in all points, yet without sin ; i. e., He 
was tempted so as it is possible to be without the entrance of 
sin. We must conceive of His endurance of temptation with the 
qualification that He continued free from sin ; and of His sinless- 
ness as having stood the test of every species of temptation. 



160 



ARGUMENTS AGAINST THE ACTUAL 



According to this, there must be temptation without sin, and 
temptation with sin : there is a limit within which temptation is 
without sin, beyond which it involves sin. Our task is conse- 
quently to determine the point at which temptation does become 
sin ; and, in order to accomplish this, we shall need to examine 
more closely into the relation between sin and temptation. If 
our investigation be conducted on right principles, it will tend 
greatly to diminish the difficulty presented by the narrative of 
the actual temptation of our Lord. 

Our inquiry into the nature of sin has shown us that, although 
it appertains primarily to the will, we are not to regard it 
as entirely confined to that faculty. The life of the man in all 
its essential aspects must be taken into consideration. Recipro- 
city is the law of our constitution ; and in virtue thereof, not only 
does the will, when affected by sin, act prejudicially on the other 
spheres of our life, but these latter also, being corrupt, influence 
injuriously the will. Sin cannot consummate itself by a simple 
abstract act of will. Attendant on the action of the will, there 
must be a darkening of the intelligence and imagination — a 
stirring up of false and sensual emotions, or the acme will not be 
reached. The actual influence exerted by these different sides 
of our being varies according to the peculiarities of individual 
constitutions, and to the measure of the sinfulness of our states. 
At the same time, however, in respect of the various spheres of 
our life, we must carefully distinguish between that which arises 
from their natural orderly action, and that which is already a 
beginning of sin. We cannot consider it sinful that that which 
is evil should present itself to the understanding and imagination, 
partly as objectively existent, and partly as a possibility; for 
this is just one of the things which man as a moral being cannot 
avoid. Nor can it with any greater reason be looked upon as in 
and for itself sinful, that a sense of the opposition between plea- 
sure and pain should be called forth within us by distinct thoughts 



SINLESSNESS OF JESUS. 



161 



or images, and that the one should exert an attractive, and the 
other a repulsive, influence. Such experiences owe their exist- 
ence to the fact that man is endowed with sensibilities and a phy- 
sical body, which being inalienable parts of his nature, must be 
recognized as of Divine ordination. 1 The presentation of evil 

1 In the fact that Jesus had a body, and along with it sensual sensibilities, no 
ground or direct occasion of sin was involved. <r«.g is ascribed to Him in a 
perfectly good sense, with reference of course to human limitations and lowli- 
ness, but with no reference at all to sin. In opposition to this, it is maintained 
by some — chiefly persons tinged with fanaticism — as for example, formerly, by 
Dippel, Eschrich, Fend, and Poiret, (compare Baumgarten and Hoevel's Dis- 
sertation, sec. ii. pp. 20-37,) and recently by the well-known Irving, through 
whom this point has become the subject of religious controversy in England, 
that to Christ must be ascribed not simply flesh, but sinful flesh ; and that, 
even if in respect of His spirit and will He is to be held perfectly free from 
actual and habitual sin, it must be granted that in the matter of the sensual 
sensibilities and their sinful impulses He was not different from other men. It 
is plain that these persons are somewhat lax in their view of sinlessness : for it 
is involved in the true idea of sinlessness that the sensual impulses shall not act 
independently of and in opposition to the spirit, but be altogether ruled by it. 
Moreover the words of the Apostle, to which they appeal, do not furnish a suf- 
ficient warrant for the doctrine. In the passage, Rom. viii. 3 — 6 Qtcs tov ictvroZ 

vlov Ti^^ats Iv o/xoiu/it&Ti cotoyjhs kfjcctorlcts — the word bf^OtcoiMct refers only to cct^xos, 

and not at the same time to ct^ct^rias, and the meaning is — " God sent His Son 
in the likeness of man, who is a sinner." We must not lay emphasis on the 
expression <ra$% as if it stood for a particular part of human nature ; it desig- 
nates human nature generally (see John i. 14 and Col. i, 22), and is called sinful 
on account of the connection of the words. The predicate sinful must not be 
applied to Christ also, for then the Apostle would be flatly contradicting his 
own words in 2 Cor. v. 21 : " He hath made Him to be sin for us who knew no 
sin." Compare Flatt, Tholuck, and other commentators on this passage. For 
more extended discussions of this point see Miiller's Doctrine of Sin, I. 407 if, 
and especially pp. 434-459, 3d edition, and Nitzsch's System of Christian Doc- 
trine, § 129, Observ. 1. Nitzsch says, in the place referred to, in regard to the 
passages from the Epistle to the Hebrews which bear on this point, namely, 
v. 2, 7, vii. 27, ix. 28 : — " The Epistle to the Hebrews has indeed ascribed the 
«r0svsi*, in the form of temptation and xocQuv, to the High Priest of the New Tes- 
tament, for through it alone was Jesus capable of sympathizing with men, but 
not in the form of Mooter!*, for then He would have been under the necessity of 
offering sacrifices ?rs^ Witts a patriots 

L 



162 ARGUMENTS AGAINST THE ACTUAL 



through the understanding or imagination only implies sin, when 
the thought or image rises from within ourselves. Then we con- 
sider its presence sinful, because it presupposes the groundwork 
of our soul to be corrupt. But in case the thought or image is 
suggested by the surrounding world, we are only chargeable with 
actual sin if we dwell thereon with approval ; for then our moral 
judgment begins to be darkened, and an inclination towards evil 
to be felt. In like manner, the sensations of pleasure and pain, 
of the desirable and repulsive, which have their seat in the soul 
as the connecting link between body and spirit, can only be called 
sinful when they owe their rise to an opposition between spirit 
and flesh, already active in our personal life ; or, at all events, 
they first acquire a sinful character when they prepare the way 
for the action of this antagonism, and produce desires whose 
satisfaction would be a transgression of the Divine order of our 
life. It cannot be denied that evil does enter man through the 
channels of thought and imagination, of feeling and sensual sen- 
sibility. At the same time, however, it must not only be felt 
that the real decision of the matter rests with the will, — because 
it is only by a determination of will that man makes evil perfectly 
his own, and translates it into an inward or outward act of 
which he becomes personally guilty ;— but also we must keep in 
view the fact, that in the spheres of thought and imagination, of 
emotion and sensibility, there are boundary-lines very clearly 
separating between that which is natural and that which is sinful. 

Our inquiry concerns, then, the relation which temptation 
bears to evil. In order to answer this question, we must inves- 
tigate the idea and nature of temptation. 1 By temptation we 
mean all that which acts on a free personality, in such a way as 
possibly to give its life a direction away from the good and 

1 For the usage of the expressions ^u^lia-Qoci and sn/^^oV in the New Testa- 
ment, see Tholuck's Commentary on the Sermon on the Mount, p. 432 ff., and 
Kern's Brief Jacobi, p. 125 ff. 



SINLESSNESS OF JESUS. 



163 



towards the evil. That which tempts, may lie either in the man 
himself, — in the form of disorderly desire and inclination ; 1 or be 
presented from without, in the shape of a motive to sinful action. 
Still, a temptation coming from without, must enter the mind 
through the medium of thought or fancy or sensual impression, or 
else it is as good as not present. To be tempted then means : to 
receive an impression which may move to evil. E very being is 
liable to temptation whose nature is on the one hand susceptible 
to good, and, on the other, does not necessarily shut out the pos- j 
sibility of evil. God cannot be tempted, because the holiness of ! * 
His nature exalts Him above all temptation. Irrational crea- 
tures cannot be tempted, because, being incapable of true good, 
they are also below temptation. Man alone, free to choose, can 
be tempted, for he may be bent in both directions : he can be 
tempted because he is a moral, though not yet in his inward 
nature a holy, personality. Temptation begins for him when 
evil is presented, at some point of his inner or outer life, in such 
a way that he can directly take it up into his own being. But 
man is exposed in two ways to the possibility and seductive 
power of evil. On the one hand, he may be drawn to actual sin 
by enticements ; and, on the other hand, he may be turned aside 
from good by threatened as well as by inflicted suffering. The 
former may be termed positive, the latter negative, temptation. 
The one is notably illustrated in the Story of Hercules at the 
two ways : the other in the sufferings of Job. As evil, when it 
lays hold upon us, affects our life in its entirety, and not merely 
on this or that side of it, so does temptation assail us at different 
points in order to gain possession of our will. Hence we may be 
tempted as truly through thoughts and imaginations as through 

1 This is the IxiQvpta of which S. James speaks as the usual commencement of 
sin in man, James i. 14. This kind of temptation presupposes a germ of evil 
already within the man himself : it is irreconcileable with moral perfection in 
the strict sense, and hence inapplicable to Jesus. 



164 



ARGUMENTS AGAINST THE ACTUAL 



feeling and sensibility : and in each case the temptation may 
assume either the positive or the negative form, may be either a 
seduction to evil or a preventive from good. 

Where, then, is the point in temptation at which sin begins, or 
at which it becomes itself sin f It is there where the evil which 
is presented to us begins to exert a determining influence on the 
heart, — an influence which, extending onwards to the will, leads 
it to act in a manner opposed to the Divine order. Then we 
And that a conflict is awakened in man which is inconceivable 
without the presence of sin, be it only in the least degree. Dis- 
orderly desire and inward bias towards evil are themselves the 
beginning of sin : and if such desire had its root and source in 
our own inner being, it not only leads to sin, but presupposes the 
ground of our life to be already corrupt. At this stage it is sin 
itself that entices to sin : sin as a condition leads to sin in act. 
But temptation does not imply sin, when the evil as a thing 
coming from the world without merely offers its allurements, and 
is kept at a distance by the indwelling energy of the spirit ; 
or when we are shaken by sufferings, whether of the body or soul 7 
and instead of giving way to ungodly states of feeling and ten- 
dencies of the will, (as in certain circumstances we might do,) 
endure patiently, and are sustained by our inner moral power. 
I There is yet another element to be considered. The presenta- 
jtion of evil, as evil, is not by any means in itself a temptation. 
Evil, simply as such, is not attractive, but repulsive, to a nature 
that is not wholly Satanic. In order that evil may tempt 'at all, 
it must take the alluring form of that which is good and pleasant 
and beneficial — it must be apparently fitting and full of promise. 
This is the secret of its seductive power. For the presentation 
of evil in the form of something that is more agreeable, easier, 
more fruitful of results, a natural point of contact is furnished by 
the sensual side of man's being, by that part of our constitution 
in which the contrast of pleasure and pain, of that which is de- 



SINLESSNESS OF JESUS. 



165 



sirable and that which is repulsive, is naturally and spontane- 
ously felt. But evil and sin are not necessarily involved therein. 
So long as the true feeling of the good is not corrupted by the 
consciousness of this contrast ; and the integrity and purity of 
the moral judgment are not vitiated ; and the firm resolve of 
the will remains unshaken to hold fast the genuinely good, even 
along with sufferings and sacrifices, in opposition to that coun- 
terfeit good which, though it be pleasant in appearance and 
promises large results, is false and noxious at the core : — no 
departure from the Divine will can be charged on us. 

Contemplating Jesus from this point of view, we can under- 
stand how He might be tempted, and yet remain free from sin. 
He was tempted in all points, — that is, He was tempted in the 
only two possible ways, specified above. On the one hand, al- 
lurements were presented which might have moved Him to actual 
sin ; and, on the other hand, He was beset by sufferings which 
might have turned Him aside from the Divine path of duty. But 
in face of both kinds of temptation, His spiritual energy and His 
love to God remained pure and unimpaired. Temptations of the 
first order were concentrated in the attack made on Jesus by 
Satan : temptations of the second order assailed Him most se- 
verely during the struggles of Gethsemane, and when He felt 
Himself forsaken by God on the Cross. It will now be our duty 
to examine both these more carefully. 

At present we shall consider the narrative of the Temptation 1 
only in one aspect, namely, in its relation to the sinlessness of Jesus, 
in respect of the difficulty it may present in the w r ay of a full 
recognition of that sinlessness. 2 At the same time, some reference 
to the different modes of understanding that narrative will be un- 

1 Matthew iv. 1-11 ; Mark i. 12, 13 ; Luke iv. 1-13. 

2 The following essays, which advert to my own earlier view, may be compared 
in this connection : Usteri Ueber die Versuchung Christi, Stud. u. Krit. 1830, 1 : 



166 



ARGUMENTS AGAINST THE ACTUAL 



avoidable. Id some explanations of the account, the sinlessness 
of Jesus is regarded as beyond all question: in others, on the 
contrary, it is imperilled. On this ground it will be necessary to 
pass the different interpretations briefly in review, and to decide 
to which our adherence shall be given. 1 

By some, the history of the temptation has been supposed not 
to narrate actual occurrences, but to be simply a product of the 
thought of the early Christians, at least in its present form. The 
opinions of those who take this view are divided as to whether 
the account originated with Jesus Himself under the form of a 
parable, or with His immediate followers under the form of a 
mythus. Whatever our judgment may be of explanations of this 
nature ; as explanations, it is quite clear that they are not incon- 
sistent with a recognition of, and do not endanger, the sinless- 
ness of Jesus. Neither as a parable, in which Jesus set forth the 
fundamental maxims according to which all efforts on behalf 
of His kingdom should be regulated, nor as a myth, in which His 
Church glorified Him as the conqueror of Satan, would it involve 
anything really at variance with His sinlessness. This circum- 
stance has helped to decide the preference of some recent theolo- 
gians, amongst whom are Schleiermacher and Usteri, for the 
parabolical mode of interpretation. We cannot, however, see 
our way clear to the adoption of such a method of escaping the 
difficulties; and simply for the reason that we hold the view 
which underlies it to be an utterly inadmissible one. The entire 
character of the narrative, and especially the position it occupies 
between the baptism and public appearance of Jesus, argue too 

Hocheisen, Bemerkungen uber die Vers. Gesch., in the Tubingen Zeitschrift f, 
Theologie, 1833,2: Kohlsch utter, zur Verstandigung uber die Vers. Gesch., in 
Kauffer's Bibl. Studien, Jahrg*. 2. The most recent diseussions of the sub- 
ject are by E. Pfeiffer in the Deutsche Zeitschrift, May 1851, No. 22 ; and by 
Rink in the same periodical, September 1851, No. 36 ; also by Laufs in the 
Studien und Kritihen, 1853, 2. 
1 At present briefly : more fully in the Appendix. 



SINLESSNESS OF JESUS. 



167 



strongly that we have to do with matters of fact, and not with 
parable or mythus. And even if it be true, which at present we 
do not stop to consider, that some portions of the account can- 
not be in every respect defended as actual history, and must be 
looked upon as drapery, still we should have to hold fast a kernel 
of fact. When we reflect that it was involved in the human 
nature of Christ that He should be tempted ; further, that the 
Gospels throughout know nothing at all of a Saviour who was 
not actually tempted ; and finally, that it lay in the nature of the 
case, that that which could be a temptation to Him should pre- 
sent itself with special force at the commencement of His career, 
we shall see the necessity of maintaining a substratum of fact in | 
this history. 

But even supposing we do maintain that we have before us 
the report of actual temptations undergone by Jesus, there is 
nothing to prevent a variety of modifications in our conception 
of it. Before entering on an examination of these modifications, 
it will be advisable to come to some decision as to the essential 
meaning of the history, and thus to ascertain clearly that which 
must hold true under all circumstances, whatever may be the 
mode in which single points are treated. 

The very position in which the history stands, furnishes an 
argument for its recording matters of fact. But there is some- 
thing more still involved therein. The narrative is undoubtedly 
set forth as an essential item of the Gospel of Jesus as the Christ, 
as a constituent part of the life of Jesus as the Messiah. In this 
quality, it is placed between that baptismal act which should 
and did inaugurate the Messiah, and the actual appearance of 



Jesus as the Messiah. By this we are indirectly, but notwith- 
standing plainly enough taught, that the temptation bore refer- 
ence to Jesus in His Messianic character ; that it was not merely 
a trial of the general human kind, but specially a trial of the 
Messiah. This is clear from the third temptation — the offer of 



168 



ARGUMENTS AGAINST THE ACTUAL 



worldly dominion : but it is also distinctly hinted at in the two 
others, in the words, if Thou art the Son of God (Matthew iv. 3, 6) ; 
for these words do not relate to the human nature which Jesus 
had in common with us all, but to His higher dignity. More- 
over, both these latter temptations manifestly have respect to a 
person, like the Messiah, endowed with extraordinary powers 
from God, and under special Divine protection. We may ac- 
cordingly determine the essential feature of the temptation in 
one aspect to be, that Jesus, at a critical point of His career, 
repelled, with all firmness and decision, the seductions of the 
worldly and external conception of Messianic glory, trampled it 
under foot as sinful and ungodly, and adopted once for all aims 
and modes of operation which were pure and well-pleasing to 
God. Linked together in this way, the individual temptations 
may be conceived as follows. The first, which was the tempta- 
tion to change stones into bread, contains a call to the Messiah 
to employ His miraculous endowments for the satisfaction of 
His own immediate and pressing wants. In the second temp- 
tation, which was to cast Himself down from the pinnacle of 
the Temple, He is urged to put that protection which is pro- 
mised to God's chosen One to the test, by wilfully running into 
manifest danger. 1 The third temptation, in which the kingdoms 
of the world and their glory were exhibited before Him, appears 
to Hirn to employ worldly means for the realization of His idea 
of a world-wide theocracy. The rejoinders show that such is 
the significance of the temptations. To the first Jesus answers, 
that man does not live by bread alone — by that which only relieves 
our physical necessities, but by every word that cometh from the 
mouth of God: to the second He replies, that we may not tempt 

1 The supposition that the second temptation calls for a miracle of display, 
seems to me now, to come far behind the explanation given above. For the 
grounds, see the Appendix. Compare also the Essay of Kohlschiitter in 
Kauffers Bibl. Studien, Jahrg. 2, pp. 75, 76. 



SINLESSNESS OF JESUS. 



the Lord our God — we may not arbitrarily and unnecessarily call 
for His protection : to the third He rejoins — making reference to 
the fact, that an external empire like those which had been spread 
out before Him could only be established by one who was engaged 
to serve the Prince of this world, — Thou shalt worship the Lord 
thy God, and Him only shalt thou serve. All three temptations 
converge in one central and fundamental thought — the thought 
of a kingdom which, although apparently Divine, is in reality only 
worldly, and opposed to the true kingdom of God which is first 
founded in the hearts of men, and thence attains external visible 
realization. 1 The only way to the establishment of such a king- 
dom was through the prostitution of his higher Messianic endow- 
ments to the satisfaction of the desires of His physical nature, 
through a presumptuous confidence in Divine protection in paths 
of danger chosen by Himself, and finally, through a league with, 
and an entrance into, the service of the Prince of the world. On 
the contrary, it was only in a spirit of self-renunciation, of self- 
denial in the way prescribed by God, and by a distinct rupture 
with all the power and glory of this world, that the true king- 
dom of God could be founded. It was consequently the essential 
opposition between a kingdom which, corresponding to the views 
of the carnal mind, might be speedily and compulsorily set up, 
and one of self-sacrificing love, — which could only be gradually 
established from within and in the divinely ordered way, — that 
now presented itself to the mind of Jesus. He who was sent to 
found a true dominion of God, was thus called upon, as He 
entered on His mission, for a distinct, full, and final decision on 
one side or the other. 

This is unmistakeably one aspect of the temptation of Jesus : 
but we cannot confine ourselves to it. Were we to do so, our 
conception of the whole matter would be far too abstract. The 
Tempter does undoubtedly appeal to Jesus as the Son of God, 
1 Compare Neander's Life of Jesus, 5th Ed., p. 118. 



170 



ARGUMENTS AGAINST THE ACTUAL 



and very obviously endeavours to influence Him as such ; but 
there must be no separation made between the Son of God and 
the Son of Man. In fact, the temptations endured by Jesus 
were real and genuine, for the simple reason, that whilst they 
tried Him in his character of Messiah, they also assailed Him as 
a man. 1 A merely theoretical choice between a false and a true 
conception of Messiah would have been no temptation at all. It 
was indispensable that the false conception should have in it 
something of a blinding and bribing nature, 2 something that 
might prove seductive to the self-love of His sensual nature. That 
such an element was present, is as unquestionable as it is evident 
that Jesus could only be open thereto so far as He shared the 
general human sensibility to pleasure and pain, to joy and sorrow. 
Only on this supposition could it be said of Him, that He was 
tempted in all points like as we are. 3 In this sense His tempta- 
tions have a general human, as well as a special Messianic, cha- 
racter. They exhibit the spiritual Head of our raceas tried like 
our natural, physical head, but with contrary results. The 
temptation, in the individual suggestions, seems to have consisted 
partly in that which would prove seductive to human nature in 
its usual forms, and partly in that which is peculiarly alluring to 
men of a higher order, who are called to a higher vocation. 
There was, first of all, the inclination to use the gifts of God in 
the service of self : then there was the liability to entertain the 
fancy, that because He was entrusted with a Divine mission, and 

1 The denial of the Messianic element of the Temptation, which we meet with 
in some commentators of the present day {e.g., Rink, in the essay alluded to 
previously), contradicts the position and entire character of the account. On 
the other hand, we must not limit the temptation to this, as I myself did for- 
merly. In order to reach the whole truth, both the human and Messianic 
aspects must be taken in conjunction. 

2 Special emphasis is rightly laid on this point by Kohlschiitter, pp. 68-71. 

3 Hebrews iv. 15, where the words aad' 1 opoioryra are not employed without pur- 
pose. 



SINLESSNESS OF JESUS. 



171 



was under the special guardianship of God, He might unhesitat- 
ingly enter any paths, however dangerous, 1 and though chosen 
arbitrarily : and lastly, there was the desire for this world's 
power and glory. To temptation of the first kind men are ex- 
posed, as men : to seductions of the second kind, those are pecu- 
liarly liable who have the consciousness of a higher mission : by 
allurements of the third kind, those are mainly affected who feel 
themselves destined to rule. Jesus was exposed to all alike ; for 
He was a man like ourselves, He had the certain consciousness of 
the highest mission, and He could say of Himself, / am a King. 
Here, however, again, the three temptations converged and united 
in one all-inclusive and fundamental temptation, which had re- 
spect to and required a decision between a life of selfishness 
and a life of perfect surrender to God, between self-will and the 
Divine order, between the service of the Prince of this world and 
the exclusive service of the Holy God : between the one as the 
essential principle of a kingdom of this world, and the other as 
the essential principle of the kingdom of God. 

At this point we come upon something of a character still 
more general. The point of departure for the temptation of 
Christ was the opposed conceptions of the Messiah — one true, 
and the other false. Hence we may conclude that in its ultimate 
reference it turned on the choice to be made between the principle 
of sin which rules in the world, and the principle of self-denying 
love which shall rule in the kingdom of God. This being so, we 
must regard it as highly significant that the power which tempts 
is brought before us in the unity of a person, in the form of Satan, 
that is, of him to whom are given over the kingdoms of this 

1 Many examples from history show that this thought does prove a tempta- 
tion to men who believe themselves destined to something extraordinary. How 
many who have believed in their mission, or, fatalistically expressed, in their 
star, have allowed themselves to be led away to tempt God, and have perished 
in their presumption ! 



172 



ARGUMENTS AGAINST THE ACTUAL 



world. 1 We are thereby taught that, not merely this or that 
form of sin, not only some individual evil, but the very principle 
of evil itself, assailed Jesus, and was overcome by Him. 2 And 
such a representation must be conceded to be perfectly appro- 
priate by every one who at all recognizes that there is a power 
of evil in the world : because evil, no more than good, can be 
universally present only as something abstract and unrealized, 
but must have a concrete embodiment. It is in a connection like 
this, and from such a point of view, that both the temptation and 
victory of Jesus acquire an universal character and application. 
Both are, of course, radically personal ; but then it must be re- 
C*vn - member ed that the person in question is not one who stands alone, 
but one who has a significance for all mankind. Hence, in the 
'temptation, the victory, and the results thereof, universal in- 
terests were involved. In the person of Jesus, He was primarily 
tempted whose destiny it was to be the founder of the kingdom 
of God. He, however, could only be tempted in so far as, being 
a man, He was susceptible of impressions whose nature it is to 
tempt. When, therefore, being a man, and possessing human 
susceptibilities, He overcame the sin which beset Him, — overcom- 
ing too, be it borne in mind, not merely a particular sin, but the 
very principle of evil, — and resolved for Himself to adhere to the 
divinely good, He proved Himself to be the man actually fitted 
and destined to establish the kingdom of God. Looking at the 
matter, then, from all sides, we may sum up the meaning of the 
temptation of Jesus thus : — In the decisive rejection of the false 
. and the adoption of the true idea of the Messiah, in the refusal 
of a worldly kingdom and the choice of the kingdom of God, a 
triumph was gained over the power of evil generally, and this 

1 Luke iv. 6. " And the devil said unto Him, All this power will I give Thee, 
and the glory of them ; for that is delivered unto me ; and to whomsoever I 
will I give it." 

2 See Martensen's Dogmatik, pp. 318-320. 



S1NLESSNESS OF JESUS. 



173 



achievement not only evinced the capability of Jesus to found a I 
Dinne kingdom, but constituted Him for all times the prototype 
of victory over every species of temptation. 

We may hold both that this is the true significance of the temp- 
tation, and that the history is substantially a record of fact, and 
yet differ widely in our conception of that which is acknowledged 
to be matter of fact. For example, only to mention one chief 
difference, the whole may be treated either as a record of outward 
occurrences, or of what passed merely in the soul of Jesus. In the 
first case, the tempter will be supposed to have come in some out- 
ward shape to offer his suggestions ; in the second, we may hold 
that it was the false conception of the Messiah entertained by His 
contemporaries, and which, although involving in itself the prin- 
ciple of sin, flattered self-love and promised speedier results, that 
presented itself to the mind of Jesus, just at the moment when 
He was about to make His public appearance as Messiah, and 
might naturally therefore feel it His duty to weigh what the sur- 
rounding w r orld would expect from Him in that character. On 
the former supposition, Jesus overcame the evil as something 
which was really objectively before Him ; on the latter supposi- 
tion, His own pure Messianic consciousness rose victorious over 
. the corruptions with which the carnal mind of predecessors and 
contemporaries had overlaid the idea of that deliverer. It can- 
not, however, be denied that this latter view is, on the whole, too 
artificial and spiritualistic, although it contains an element of 
truth in relation to the prevalent notions of the Messiah and to 
the inwardness of the temptation : it is also as plain that the 
former view, rightly apprehended, 1 falls in more easily and natur- 
ally with the general character of evangelistic delineations and 
representations. This being taken for granted, it must at the 
same time be acknowledged, not only that they were seductive 
thoughts by which Jesus was assailed, but also that the thoughts 
1 See the Appendix, 



174 ARGUMENTS AGAINST THE ACTUAL 



presented to Him from without must have entered into and have 
excited emotions in His inner being : for only on such an assump- 
tion could we speak: of temptation in any true sense. Then there 
arises the question, which for us is the most important of all — 
Could such seductive thoughts, in whatever way they came, enter 
the soul of Jesus without sullying His moral purity — without put- 
ting an end to His sinlesshess ? 1 

We answer, that this is quite conceivable. Two suppositions 
must, however, be most carefully avoided in connection with this 
matter. The one is, that the producing cause of these seductive 
thoughts was in any sense in the soul of Jesus Himself ; and the 
other, that they gained any determining influence over the heart, 
the will, the life of Jesus. That neither was the case may be 
clearly enough shown. 

Undoubtedly, if the thoughts in question were produced in the 
soul of Jesus, the conviction would be forced upon us, that its 
ground was morally impure, corrupt, and that sin was present in 
Him in the shape of evil desire. But there is nothing whatever 
to warrant such a supposition. And further, we strike at once at 
the root of an hypothesis of this nature, when we hold by the re- 
cognition of a tempter who appeared objectively to Jesus. Some, 
however, might be disposed to think, what in this connection 
would chiefly occasion misgiving, that it was the false idea of 
Messiah that presented itself spontaneously before the soul of 
Christ. Such a view may at first seem to involve great difficulty, 
but we may relieve ourselves of our misgivings by properly dis- 
tinguishing between the presentation and production of a thought. 
Jesus could not, in any case, be supposed to have Himself pro- 
duced the worldly, carnal view and expectation of Messiah. 
They had in every sense an objective existence, and the relation 

1 The difficulty here arising is specially urged by Schleiermacher in the well- 
known passage of his Critical Inquiry into the Gospel of Luke, p. 54, and by 
Usteri in the Essays in the Studien und Kritiken previously alluded to. 



SINLESSNESS OF JESUS. 



175 



in which He naturally stood to the surrounding world rendered 
His acquaintance with them unavoidable. He could not have 
grasped and appreciated the true idea of Messiah in its whole 
compass without taking up amongst His thoughts the negative 
side — the false, conflicting view of His character and mission. 
The full and decided appropriation of the one necessarily involved 
the rejection of the other ; consequently, also its presence before 
His soul. In any case, then, we have only to do with the thought 
of something presented from without, of that which existed as a 
matter of fact : and we have not the least reason for believing 
that such a thought, though the object thereof involved in itself 
all the elements of sin, could contaminate even the highest holiness. 

There is of course another thing yet to be taken into consi- 
deration. If we are not to deem the moral purity of Jesus to 
have been stained by the presence of the seductive thoughts, we 
must not suppose them to have exerted any determining influ- 
ence on His inner life : and this seems difficult to maintain when 
we take the idea of temptation in right earnest. One concession j 
must be made in this connection, viz., that the mere thinking of 
evil does not in and of itself constitute a temptation, and that,; 
in order to its being a temptation, the evil must appear adapted 
to, and must be enticing to, our sensual nature. The false concep- \ 
tion of Messiah, whether suggested by the devil or by the world, 
was of this nature. Moreover there can be no doubt that Jesus 
was susceptible of its influence. The guarantee thereof was His 
being a real man : and to the nature of man enjoyment is always 
dearer than privation, honour than disgrace, and a throne than 
a cross. Not that we are to conceive the enjoyments of life, 
honour, and rule to be essentially sinful. They are that only 
under certain conditions. Nor do we necessarily contract defile- 
ment through our sense of the pleasantness of these things. 
Only when it has a corrupting effect on the moral feelings, dis- 
turbs the judgment, and gives a bias to our will and activity, 



176 



ARGUMENTS AGAINST THE ACTUAL 



can this be affirmed. But the narrative of the temptation fur- 
nishes no evidence that any such influence was exerted on Jesus : 
it leads us to an exactly opposite conclusion. Not like the first 
parents 1 of mankind did Jesus dwell with pleasure on the temp- 
tation which was laid before Him. That was precisely the cause 
of their fall. With a quick resolution that is obvious from the 
whole narrative, without any lingering or longing hesitancy, He 
trampled the allurements under foot ; and with such directness 
did He oppose that which was right and Divine to every sugges- 
tion of the Tempter, that no ground whatever was left for the 
assumption, that evil entered within so as to disturb and stain 
His feeling or fancy, His heart or will. 2 But the strongest evi- 
dence and guaranty of the purity for which we here contend, is 
the character of His whole later life, and the moral conscious- 
ness which expressed itself in every part of it. So spotless was 
the purity that shone through all His acts and words, that it is 
incredible and inconceivable that the temptation, though real, 
should have involved for Him aught like the beginning of a fall, 
or, in a word, aught of sin. 

The positive temptations of Jesus were not, however, confined 

1 Genesis iii. 6 — " And when the woman saw that the tree was good for 
food, and that it was pleasant to the eyes, and a tree to be desired to make one 
v/ise, she took of the fruit thereof and did eat, and gave also unto her husband 
and he did eat." 

2 Therefore, as Hocheisen justly observes in the Tubingen Theolog. Zeit- 
schrift, 1833, ii., p. 115, no parallel can be drawn between the temptation of 
Christ and Prodikus's story of Hercules and the two ways ; for if we estimate 
His character truly, we cannot speak of a hesitation of choice of two ways in 
connection with Jesus. In order to anticipate and cut off possible difficulties 
Menken, in his Betrachtungen iiber den Maithceus, i. 104, would have the whole 
transaction termed Trial instead of Temptation. But the Scriptures do not 
sufficiently justify this change. Inasmuch as Satan comes before us xu$&to» 
we may fairly apply the distinction made even by Tertullian — Deus prohat, 
Diabolus tentat. 



S1NLESSNESS OF JESUS. 



177 



to that particular point of time when they assailed Him with 
concentrated force. 1 They returned as often as impressions were 
made on Him from without, whose tendency was to draw Him 
away from complete faithfulness to His love of God, and from 
pure and holy activity on behalf of the kingdom of God. But 
still more frequently in aftertimes was He called to endure temp- 
tation of the other, the negative kind, through suffering. The 
force of temptation of this kind culminated on two occasions ; 
in the conflict of Gethsemane, and in that moment of agony 
on the cross when He cried, My God, my God, ivhy hast Thou 
forsaken Me ? 

The whole life of Jesus, as depicted by the Evangelists, was 
pervaded by suffering. They were griefs of the intensest kind 
which pierced His soul during the contest of His loving will with 
the sin of the world ; and to these were added bodily pains, 
Both conjoined reached their climax in the tortures of the cross : 
than which no agonies can be conceived higher or more intense. 
Jesus never expressly sought, or capriciously exposed Himself to, 
suffering. Nor did He need to do so, for it came unsought. 
Still less did He purposely avoid it, seeing in it as He did an essen- 
tial constituent of His Divine calling. He resigned Himself 
cheerfully to all that befell Him, and thus displayed a power of 
endurance, which, whilst never inconsistent with the human, al- 
ways ensured victory to the Divine. 

The two events in question might be alleged as revealing 
a state of mind at variance with our assumption — namely, the 
conflict of Gethsemane, in which suffering of soul is pecu- 
liarly manifest, and the moment on the cross in which the 
physical pain, which was added to the agony of soul, reached 
its highest point. We must therefore examine both more nar- 
rowly. 

There have not been wanting those who have found in the 

i In Luke iv. 13, it is said, Satan departed from Jesus oL%%i xai^m. 

M 



178 



ARGUMENTS AGAINST THE ACTUAL 



conflict of Gethsemane, 1 especially in the supposed struggle against 
death, something inconsistent with the greatness of Jesus in 
other respects ; and, in order to remove from the image of 
Jesus a feature which, in their view, disfigures it, they have 
resorted to the desperate means of declaring the whole tradition 
unworthy of credit. 2 But the portion of the Gospel narrative in 
question is too well attested, both externally and internally, 
to justify any such violence. We shall be compelled therefore 
to find our way into this paradox also of the life of Jesus. 
And, in fact, when we look at it with an unprejudiced mind, it 
not only loses much of its strangeness, but gives besides a pecu- 
liar significance to the person of Jesus, and to the relation in 
which He stands to ourselves. The incident exhibits Jesus to us 
in the full truth of His humanity, in His perfect nearness to men. 
Jesus, as a man, could not have had a heart filled with holy love, 
without feeling most deeply grieved at the hatred which He en- 
countered in return for His own self-renunciation. He could not 
have possessed that fulness of fresh and sensitive life which He 
everywhere revealed, without shuddering at the approach of a 
death of torture. But there is nothing sinful in the grief felt by 
love at unmerited hatred ; nor in the wrestlings of a lofty soul 
with a world's abandoned wickedness; nor in the natural re- 
coil from death experienced by one whose life is healthy and 
energetic, — for this must not be confounded with a reflective 
shrinking from and resistance to death. 3 These are experiences 

1 Matt. xxvi. 36-47 ; Mark xiv. 32-43 ; Luke xxii. 39-47. 

2 See Usteri, /Studien und Kritiken, 1829, 3, p. 465. Usteri thinks that if 
the tradition were true, he must rank Jesus under Socrates. On the other side, 
compare the beautiful parallel between the death of Jesus and that of Socrates, 
in de Wette's Wesen des Christlichen Glaubens, § 53, p. 270. 

3 Hasert justly remarks, Studien und Kritiken, 1830, 1, p. 72, that the impulse 
of our physical nature to secure itself against destruction is a natural expres- 
sion of our life, belonging" essentially to its character, and therefore not neces- 
sarily involving sin. 



SINLESSNESS OF JESUS. 



179 



to which a man is naturally subject. They would have passed 
into sin, only when they produced some alteration in feeling or 
will. And that such was not the case, — that, on the contrary, the 
spiritual nature of Jesus and His love to God rose victorious over 
the agitations of His feelings and the pains of His body, — is testi- 
fied by the words, Father, not as I will, but as Thou ivillest. In 
these words there is a glorification of all that which had preceded, 
and a proof that Jesus preserved a spotless purity even amid 
such sufferings of soul as these. 

But the sufferings of Gethsemane were only a foretaste of those 
which in full reality and force preceded and accompanied His 
death on the cross. And on the cross His agony rose to such a 
point, that He had a sense of being deserted by God : to which 
feeling He gave utterance in the well-known words of the 22d 
Psalm, My God, my God, why hast Thou forsaken Me f Desertion 
by God must not, in this case, be conceived of strictly as ob- 
jective, actual withdrawal of God from the person of Jesus; for, 
as regards His person, that was an impossibility. But, on 
the other hand, it is unallowable to weaken the subjective 
force of the matter by assuming that Jesus had in His mind 
not only the commencing words of the Psalm, but the whole of 
it, and especially its elevating close. Such a procedure would be 
quite arbitrary, and would involve a transference of the whole 
from the sphere of direct spontaneous feeling to that of reflec- 
tion. 1 We ought rather to take that which is historically re- 
corded in all its significance and force, and at the same time en- 
deavour to form a just estimate of the state of mind of Jesus in 
the connection in which it is found. The experiences of the cross 
are manifestly an intensified counterpart of the agony of Gethse- 
mane. Jesus had in fact, for the moment, the feeling that He was 
deserted by God, when physical tortures burst in upon Him in all 
their fearfulness, in addition to that anguish of slighted love which is 
1 Compare Meyer's Commentary on Matthew xxviL 46. 



180 



AEGUMENTS AGAINST THE ACTUAL 



deeper than all. But this feeling was only momentary, although, in 
the circumstances and at the time, it made its presence known with 
the involmitariness and spontaneity of a force of nature. In no 
sense did it continue, or exert any influence over His inner life. It 
immediately gave way before, and yielded its due place to, a sense 
of His true relation to God. As in the conflict of Gethsemane the 
full submission to the will of the Father soon triumphed over His 
natural reluctance to drink the cup ; so here, that sense of Divine 
desertion which rose involuntarily in His mind, was at once swal- 
lowed up in the higher feeling, expressed first of all in the words, 
Father, into Thy hands I commend My spirit, (Luke xxiii. 46,) and 
then in the crowning exclamation, It is finished, (John xix. 30). 
Yea, it is manifest that the higher feeling had already begun to 
work, from the words in which Jesus expressed the sense of de- 
sertion; for He did not exclaim simply, 0 God! 0 God! but, 
My God! My God! He thus appropriated the God by whom 
He felt Himself forsaken as His God, and clung firmly to His 
fellowship with Him, notwithstanding the sense of desertion. 
Moreover, this feeling was something in itself so thoroughly 
strange to Him, that He expressed it, not in the form of a positive 
assertion, but of a question: thus hinting at its incomprehen- 
sibleness, one might almost say, at its impossibility. 1 

The perfect purity of Jesus shone forth, therefore, even in such 
circumstances as these. At the same time, we see and feel 
throughout that He was a man, and, as such, mightily moved 
and keenly sensitive. Nor could it be otherwise. The whole 
delineation of the Gospels forbids our making of the character of 
Jesus an ideal of stoical apathy and imperturbability. 2 In re- 

1 Both, in fact, were implied in the passage from the Psalms, of which Jesus 
availed Himself : but if it had not fully expressed His actual feelings, He would 
either not have used it, or have altered it to suit His need. 

2 As among the Fathers, Clement of Alexandria was inclined to do, and 
therefore applied to Christ the expression, Kvzxidupviros. For examples, see 
Hagenbach's History of Doctrines, I. § 66 and 67. 



SINLESSNESS OF JESUS. 181 

spect of wants and woes, of the impressibleness of the life of His 
soul, and the sensibility of His body to suffering, He was a perfect 
type of humanity. We cannot, however, for this reason con- 
sider Him as ranking below but above the wise man of the 
Stoics. It is precisely in this particular that the morality of the 
Stoics is untrue. Man's highest moral task is not to realize the 
superhuman, but the purely human : it does not consist in repress- 
ing his natural capacities, which, because natural, are ordained 
of God ; but in employing them in, and glorifying them by, the 
service of the Divine Spirit and holy love. In this way Jesus 
fulfilled the purpose of God ; and the most rigid moral judgment, 
so far from seeing therein anything sinful, must rather confess, 
that it is this that brings Him so near to us, and makes Him 
capable of being the Author and Finisher of our faith. In fact, 
only on this condition could He really be an example to men ; 
only on this condition could He be an actual Mediator for man, 
a high priest who was Himself tempted and tried, who Himself in the 
days of His flesh offered wp prayers and supplications with strong cry- 
ing and tears, and is therefore touched with the feeling of our infirmities. 
(Hebrews iv. 15, v. 7.) 

SECTION FOURTH. 

OTHER FACTS AND STATEMENTS AS ARGUMENTS AGAINST THE SIN- 
LESSNESS OF JESUS. 

After we may have convinced ourselves that the facts of 
Jesus undergoing a gradual temporal development, and of His 
being tempted, furnish no argument against His sinlessness, 
another question arises, namely, as to whether we do not find 
that in His works and discourses themselves which is incon- 
sistent with moral perfection. An affirmative answer to this 
question would constitute the most striking and satisfactory con- 



182 



ARGUMENTS AGAINST THE ACTUAL 



filiation of what has been hitherto advanced. Several things of 
this nature were urged even by the contemporaries of Jesus. 
Others have been brought forward more recently. Some of these 
things seem almost frivolous, and beneath notice in connection 
with a nature so elevated as that of Jesus. It is, notwithstand- 
ing, well to remove even the minutest stains from a form so 
pure as that of Jesus, when these are merely of outward, not of 
inward origin. 

Amongst the scanty traditions of the earlier period of the life 
of Jesus has been preserved that account of His peculiar ripeness 
at twelve years of age (Luke ii. 41-52), which we have already 
several times brought forward as very significant in relation to 
His mental development. But there is the appearance of a blemish 
even in connection with that remarkable circumstance. The boy 
might be reproached with disobedience, with wilfulness, for re- 
maining behind in the Temple. Howbeit, in examining the matter 
more narrowly, this apparent blemish vanishes. Not a word hints 
that His parents looked upon Him as in fault for remaining behind. 
The exclamation of His mother was simply the spontaneous ex- 
pression of tender concern. Further, we can easily conceive of 
many circumstances arising, where the family relationships were 
less constrained, which might give occasion to the separation, 
without neglect on the part of the parents, or self-will on the part 
of the Son. On the other hand, we may discern even in the boy 
the same Jesus, who as a man, rising above the narrow limits of 
family connections, and subordinating everything that was private 
and peculiar to His vocation, could say : Who is My mother ? 
vjho are My brethren ? and on another occasion could address His 
mother, Woman, what have I to do with thee f His energies were 
to be devoted to the whole of mankind, and the spirit requisite 
thereto required to manifest itself at an early period. 

In the properly Messianic period of the life of Jesus there are 
many things at which even His own contemporaries cavilled. 



SINLESSNESS OF JESUS. 



183 



Scrutinized, however, more closely, they only furnish one proof 
more of the exalted freedom of His moral life. Of such a nature 
are the reproaches, that He did not live ascetically like the 
Pharisees, nor even like John the Baptist, but ate and drank like 
ordinary men ; that He associated with publicans and sinners ; 
that He broke the Sabbath by healing the sick ; and the like. 
But it was precisely in opposition to such narrow-heartedness 
that Jesus manifested by word and deed the grand principles of 
a free morality — of that morality w T hich flows from the fountain 
of Divine love, and by which the Gospel is distinguished from 
and elevated so far above all legal service : precisely then, did He 
take occasion to defend the simple and genuinely human cheer- 
fulness of a truly pious life, which is marred by no macerating 
asceticism, and receives and uses all God's gifts thankfully and 
temperately : precisely then, too, did He propound those simple 
doctrines, that the disposition is the test of genuine morality, 
that love is more than sacrifice, that ordinances are for man and 
not man for ordinances, and lay them down as eternal truths in 
forms appropriate to the time. 

The Evangelists have artlessly recorded many doings of Jesus 
with that unreflective objectivity which is peculiar to them, with- 
out ever thinking that they might give moral offence. It is only 
the sensitiveness of the modern world that has found them strange 
and offensive. Some things of this kind scarcely deserve exami- 
nation, as, for example, the cursing of the fig-tree (Matthew xxi. 
17-22 ; Mark xi. 11-26.) The reproach, that He was interfering 
with the property of others, is in no sense well founded, and is 
almost too frivolous to be mentioned. And even the notion that 
Jesus turned against the innocent tree under the influence of per- 
sonal irritation, and destroyed its life unnecessarily, disappears, 
as soon as we remark that He was performing, and that too, 
undoubtedly, with perfect self-possession, a work of prophetically 
instructive import, which was meant to bring palpably before the 



184 ARGUMENTS AGAINST THE ACTUAL 



minds of His disciples the destruction of the spiritually unfruitful 
Jewish people. There are some other things which do in part 
present real difficulty, 1 and therefore demand a more careful con- 
sideration. With greater apparent justice ? Jesus might be ac- 
cused of interference with the rights of property in that note- 
worthy act in the country of the Gadarenes (Matthew viii. 28-34; 
Mark v. 1-20 ; Luke viii. 26-39), where the cure performed by 
Him was obviously directly coupled with damage to the inhabi- 
tants of the district. Almost all commentators on this passage 
have believed it necessary to offer an apology for Jesus : and 
naturally this has been done in various ways, according to the 
different points of view of the writers. We should hesitate to 
excuse Jesus, as many recent commentators have attempted to 
do, on the ground of His not foreseeing the result : 2 for this is at 
variance with the idea which the Evangelists give of Him. And, 
on the other hand, we might justly urge that Jesus acted here, 
as He did generally in His miracles, as the Plenipotentiary of 
God. When God, in the pursuance of higher aims, destroys single 
things, when He permits the destruction of human possessions by 
natural forces, who dare charge Him with injustice ? The com- 
plicated system of the universe requires it, and particular occur- 
rences are ordered on the plan of a wisdom which is beyond our 
comprehension. Jesus also stood on this position of higher wis- 
dom and authority ; and whoever objects to His acting out of the 
fulness of Divine right, can hardly justify Him in a manner that 
will harmonize with the general representation of the Gospels. 
It has been urged, 3 and not altogether without reason, against 
this mode of treating the question, that it lies out of the proper 

1 One of the more difficult points, the passage Matthew xix. 17,andits paral- 
lels : None is good, save One, that is, God, we shall examine further on. 

2 Hase, Lehen Jesu, 3d ed., § 75, p. 134. 

3 Schweizer, Dignitat des Religionstifters, Studien und Kritiken, 1834r } iii. p. 
570. 



SINLESSNE8S OF JESUS. 



sphere of an apology, whose business it is to justify Jesus accord- 
ing to the general laws of human action. We take our stand, 
therefore, entirely on the ground, that here, as everywhere, J esus 
aimed simply at the fulfilment of His mission, not indeed without 
foresight of the consequence of His acts, but without suffering 
Himself to be influenced thereby. His mission was to save the 
lives and souls of men, and He could not be restrained in His 
endeavours to that end by any possible destruction of irrational 
creatures, by occasioning damage which might be repaired. Nay, 
this very regardlessness of the less important, in view of that 
which was all important, only exhibits in a clearer light the high 
value which Jesus attached to man as the image of God. 

But if we are not justified in regarding Jesus as under 
the influence of passion when He cursed the fig-tree, there is 
another occurrence recorded by the Evangelists, in connection 
with which we can scarcely avoid such a supposition, namely, 
The driving out those who were buying and selling in the Temple^ 
(Matthew xxi. 12-17; Mark xi. 15-19 ; Luke xix. 45-48, com- 
pared with John ii. 14-18.) It is even possible to describe it in 
such a way as to make it appear that there was an employment 
of physical force. There is, however, nothing to authorize such 
a delineation. Of a certainty, it was not so much the physical 
force employed by Jesus, as His holy earnestness and His high 
personal worth, that gave the action its impressiveness and efficacy. 
Their feeling that He was in the right, and they in the wrong, 
drove the traffickers out of the Temple. Notwithstanding, there 
do remain traces of angry ebullition in the act, which contrast 
with the usual mildness of Jesus. The disciples themselves were 
sensible of the presence of a devouring zeal in His conduct on 
this occasion, (John ii. 17.) But here the distinction must be ob- 
served between personal passion and the noble anger felt by the 
man who is entrusted with a high calling. Jesus did not stand 
as a Jewish rabbi over against Jewish traffickers, but as the 




186 



ARGUMENTS AGAINST THE f CTUAL 



divinely appointed Purifier of the genuine theocracy over against 
those who were desecrating His Father's house : and this posi- 
tion gave Him the right to act in a way which perhaps could not, 
and certainly needed not, to be justified according to traditional 
rules. Even if the doubtful jus zelotarum were recognized, it 
would not be necessary to appeal to it in order to clear the con- 
duct of Jesus of blame. As Lucke observes, in his commentary 
on this passage, He was wielding that power of chastisement 
which is truly connected with the office of Prophet, — that power 
which has been and should be exercised in all ages and among 
all peoples by higher natures called with such a vocation, when- 
ever earthly relations and the course of justice, according to 
existing laws, are unable to stem the growing corruption. Such 
an action, however, could never have been performed, but under 
the influence of an overpowering earnestness and an intensely 
ardent zeal. Such earnestness and zeal are at once truly human 
and humanly grand. Whoever is incapable of that zeal which 
is free from all personal feeling, is incapable also of any great 
action. In this position, a pure mind will see and feel that the 
exalted character of Jesus remained untarnished. 

A peculiar difficulty lies, finally, in the relation between Jesus 
and Judas. 1 If Jesus knew Judas, why did Pie enroll him 
in the company of the Apostles, where he became His betrayer ? 
And if He did not see through him, what have we to say on be- 
half of the moral penetration and mental elevation of Jesus ? In 
either case, did not Jesus here make a mistake ? In giving a 
satisfactory answer to this question, all depends on our concep- 
tion of the moral condition of Judas when called to the fellowship 
of Jesus. Substantially, there are three different views of this 
matter possible, each of which leads to a different solution of the 

1 Compare on this relation, and the different modes of conceiving it, Dr Gust. 
Schollmeyer's Jesus and Judas, Luneberg", 1836. See also Neander's Life of 
Jesus t and Hase Leben Jesu, § 110, p. 182, ff., 3d Ed. 



SINLESSNESS OF JESUS. 



187 



difficulty. According to the first, Judas, at the time of his 
acceptance by Jesus, had already within him the germs of his 
after sins — ambition and covetousness — but the good was still 
predominant in his soul : and further, Jesus hoped to accomplish 
his complete renovation, and then to avail Himself of the strong 
nature of Judas as an able instrument for the advancement 
of His cause, but was foiled in His gracious intentions. 1 Ac- 
cording to the second view, the character of Judas was already 
thoroughly corrupt when he came into contact with Jesus ; he 
had already fallen irrecoverably a prey to evil ; 2 and Jesus chose 
him not only with the distinct knowledge that he would be, but 
also with the intention that he should be, His betrayer. It was 
absolutely necessary that some instrument should bring to pass 
the death of Jesus ; and the baneful necessity of being this instru- 

1 This hypothesis is carried out in a manner correspondent to the state of 
theological science at the time of its publication, in the anonymous essay entitled 
— Wie konnte der grosse Menschenhenner Jesus einen Judas zum Lehrer der 
Menscheit wahlen ? See Augusti, Theologische Blatter, B. i., pp. 4-97-515. 

2 This is Daub's conception of Judas in his Judas Ischarioih, oder, iiber das 
Bose im Verhaltniss zum Guten, Heidelberg, 1816. See especially Heft 1, pp. 
16-20. Judas is there described as the evil which has utterly cast off all huma- 
nity, as a devil in the flesh, who becomes the betrayer of the incarnate God, 
and in whose (predestined) despair there was no stirring of good. We read, 
page 19, "Despair did not come into this sinner, nor did he fall into it; but, 
like the power of evil in him which went on ever increasing from his first youth, 
so despair also simply grew ever mightier. As therefore his entire struggling 
and acting was that of a hopelessly bad man, so also of one who was con- 
stantly despairing." But from this point of view, the question rises with 
double force, How could the Holy One of the Gospel take into intimate near- 
Dess to Himself, one who was thus reprobate, and thus set him where, so far from 
being improved, the sight of eternal goodness must inevitably only harden him 
the more ? Not quite of the same, but yet of a similar view, is Olshausen. 
See his Biblical Commentary, vol. ii., p. 438 ff. (German Edition). He thinks 
that the calling of Judas, in whom evil already lay, gave him a new opportunity 
of salvation. Notwithstanding, the necessity of the traitorous deed was upon 
him, and the actual accomplishment thereof did not make him in reality a more 
sinful or a more guilty man. 



188 



ARGUMENTS AGAINST THE ACTUAL 



ment was laid on Judas, who on other grounds was already 
reprobate. His destiny was to exhibit evil in its highest deve- 
lopment, present an historical embodiment of the opposition which 
evil necessarily offers to the good, as personally realized in Christ. 
The end was then served also, of bringing evil and good before 
us conflicting with all their might, and of teaching us, by a great 
fact, that evil, even when it rises up in full energy, cannot but 
further the designs of holy goodness and the work of redemption ; 
and that it must glorify the good by evincing its own weakness. 
According to the third view, when Judas was called to be an 
Apostle, evil was indeed already predominant in him, but not 
absolutely supreme, he was still susceptible of improvement : his 
proximity to Jesus might influence him for good or for evil ; and 
with the possibility of success before Him, Jesus regarded it as 
worth while to make the attempt to recover him. If Judas were 
gained to the side of the good, he would prove one of the most 
powerful of the Apostles : if he were lost, he might still, yea, 
must of necessity, serve the plan of Jesus. Jesus did not de- 
ceive Himself by cherishing very definite and certain expectations 
of the improvement of Judas ; He was prepared for any issue : 
He saw, even at an early period of their connection, 1 how Judas 
would decide ; but He did not then cast him out, partly because 
an expulsion would have been a very different thing from a re- 
fusal to admit him at first, and partly because Judas would 
further His aims even by his deeper fall. 

The first of these views not only supposes that Jesus was de- 
ceived, which is irreconcileable with the depth and acuteness of 
His penetration, but rests also on a misconception of the true 
nature of moral development. In order to reach the height of 

1 The expression I| otpx%$, John vi. 64, need not necessarily be referred to the 
period before, or to the exact time of, the call of Judas : it means, as in John 
xvi. 4, in the first period, soon after he was chosen, and long before he mani- 
fested his real disposition in the act of betrayal. 



SINLESSNESS OF JESUS. 



189 



evil at which we find Judas, its influence over him must have 
been for a longer period growing stronger and stronger, and 
working its way into all the parts, into the very tissue of his 
being. Had he entered into the fellowship of Jesus with a 
strong susceptibility to good impressions, the result would 
have been different. Moreover, (and this is decisive,) this view 
clearly contradicts the declaration of John, 1 that Jesus knew the 
traitorous designs of Judas even at the earliest stage of their in- 
tercourse. The second view rather cuts than unties the knot. 
It considers the matter only in its relation to the end aimed at, 
whilst primarily it ought to be examined from the point of view 
of the determining cause : it makes a leap from the region of the 
historical to that of the metaphysical, and explains the obscure 
by that which is still more obscure : it further supposes a degree 
of wickedness in Judas that strips him of everything human, and 
this, notwithstanding that his repentance, although perverse in 
its operation and results, testified to some remains of goodness, — 
notwithstanding, too, that even his violent and desperate death 
exhibited traces of his former greatness. This view stands also in 
contradiction to the words of Jesus, that He came to seek the lost ; 
and assumes that it was necessary that a member of His most 
intimate circle should betray Jesus, which does not by any means 
seem to have been necessary when we bear in mind the publicity 
of His life. The first two views being untenable, only the third 
remains for our adoption. 2 This has also its difficulties, but will 
be justified by the remarks which follow. It was the destiny of 
Jesus, in His entire manifestation, to divide the divine from the 
ungodly, the good from the evil, — to awaken and quicken the one, 
and to punish and spiritually overcome the other. Even whilst 

1 John vi. 64, 70. But there are some of you that believe not. For Jesus knew 
from the beginning who they were that believed, and who should betray Him. Have 
not I chosen you twelve, and one of you is a devil ? 

2 Such also is the opinion of Hase. See his Leben Jesu } 3d Ed. § 110, p. 182. 



190 



ARGUMENTS AGAINST THE ACTUAL 



on earth, He thus manifested and judged the hearts of men. 1 
In and through Him were the thoughts of the heart to be re- 
vealed: some were to be raised up, others to be cast down. 
That which had been exemplified through the entire history of 
humanity, found also its illustration amongst those who came 
into closest contact with Jesus in His earthly life. Either of the 
two results, considered in itself, might have followed in the case of 
Judas. He was still a man, and, as such, capable of salvation : 
he might fall, but he might too, perhaps, like Peter, rise again : 
a ray of holy love might yet penetrate his soul. That this would 
not take place, was not clearly to be foreseen ; for it is precisely 
evil, as something which is utterly arbitrary and inconsequen- 
tial, on whose development we cannot with certainty calculate. 
Looking to the possibility of a change for the better, Jesus chose 
him. But by an act of wickedness, which is at the bottom as incap- 
able of rational explanation as evil is generally, Judas hardened 
himself, even whilst in communion with the purest goodness. Thus 
that Divine love which might have saved him, only worked his de- 
struction. And just as all evil must finally serve the good, so Judas, 
when the process of hardening had once set in, was compelled 
to further the ends of Jesus, whatever his own intentions might 
be. In contrast to the purity of Jesus, he exhibited sin in all its 
abominableness : and, by bringing about the catastrophe of the 
death of Jesus, he helped on the accomplishment of the work of 
redemption. Through him and his crime, it became possible for 
Jesus to enter into the suffering of death, without seeking it 
Himself. Finally, too, by his own desperate death, he testified 
to the purity of Him whom he had betrayed. In all this, how- 
ever, we must not seek the end, the reason, but only the result of 
the choice of Judas by Jesus. The choice was dictated by the 

1 A xtfo-is in the sense in which the word is used in the writings of John. The 
Xoyos ®&ov is designated »^irt»6s also in the Epistle to the Hebrews, chapter 
iv. 12. 



SINLESSNESS OF JESUS. 



191 



motives indicated above; and these motives cannot but be acknow- 
ledged to have been pure, seeing that they were based on the 
possibility of the salvation even of Judas. 1 

1 Naturally and justly also we should count Jesus guilty of an immorality, if the 
traces of an untruth were discovered in Him. Such a discovery would at once 
destroy His character. There is an appearance of untruth in John vii. 8, 10, 
Go ye up unto this feast : I go not up yet unto this feast ; for my time is not yet 
full come. But when His brethren were gone up, then went He also up unto the 
feast, not openly, but as it were in secret ; and Porphyry, an early opponent of 
Christianity, did not fail to make a handle of it. In Hieronym. adv. Pelag. 
Lib. ii., we read — " Iturum se negavit et fecit, quod prius negaverat," latrat 
Porphyrins ; inconstantise ac mutationis accusat. The difficulty would be most 
readily met by reading ovxu instead of ovx, " not yet," as in the English version, 
instead of " not," as the Greek ought to be rendered : but it is in the highest 
degree probable that this variation in the reading has been forced on the passage 
in order to get rid of the difficulty. Porphyry must in his day have read tlx. 
The word is, however, used here in the sense of "not yet," as in John vi. s 17. 
(compare also Mark xi. 13 ; Ezr. hi. 6) ; and, in any case, whether the emphasis 
lies in the more unusual sense of tlx, or in the strict understanding of the pre- 
sent form of the verb, av«/3at/v&>, we must limit the expression of Jesus to a nar- 
row' space of time, embracing only the present and the immediate future. This 
is clear from the words which follow, on 6 xat^og 6 l^os ovku a-ssrA^gara/. If the 
narrative were to be understood in a different way, the contradiction must first 
of all have struck the Evangelist himself, and he would surely not have passed 
it over so heedlessly. To the same class of difficulties belongs the passage 
Luke xxiv. 28, And they drew nigh unto the village whither they went : and He 
made as though He would have gone farther. Here an act of dissimulation seems 
to be attributed to Jesus. What, however, more carefully weighed, we should 
infer from the account, is not so much that Jesus Himself actually pretended 
to be going farther, as that the disciples, walking with Him, judged from His 
behaviour that He simulated : He appeared as if He would go farther. 



192 ARGUMENTS AGAINST THE 



CHAPTER II. 

ARGUMENTS AGAINST THE POSSIBILITY OF SINLESSNESS. 

When the arguments against the actual sinlessness of Jesus, 
taken from matters of fact, are found to be inadequate, the only 
course left open, is to call in question the possibility of sinlessness 
in the domain of human life. If we were necessitated to regard 
the realization of a perfectly holy life as something intrinsically 
impossible, we should, of course, be unable to recognize sin- 
lessness in any concrete case. Such an impossibility has been 
asserted, and reasons have been urged in support of it, which are 
partly drawn from experience, and partly from the nature of the 
moral idea and the mode of its realization. The examination of 
the grounds of both kinds thus brought forward, is now therefore 
incumbent on us. 

SECTION FIRST. 

ARGUMENTS DRAWN FROM EXPERIENCE. 

In many cases, undoubtedly, the fruit of experience in connec- 
tion with the moral relations of life, is distrust of the purity of 
human virtue, and unbelief in the existence of true goodness 
and greatness amongst men. The more earnestly we examine 
the phenomena of human life around us, and the workings of our 
own hearts, the harder is it to attain the conviction, that there 
ever did live one who was wholly pure and perfect. Whitherso- 
ever our eyes are turned, we find concealed under a thousand 
captivating forms, the hankering after pleasure, vanity, ambition, 



POSSIBILITY OF SINLESSNESS. 



193 



the longing for possessions and power; malevolence and envy; and 
above all, that evil of evils, egotism, which in the subtlest way 
creeps into volitions and acts of a nobler character. Seldom 
does it fall to our lot to rejoice at the sight of a really pure deed : 
never have we the happiness to discover a man whose life is an 
unblemished picture of moral perfection. The eye of our spirit 
becomes, in consequence, so accustomed to the constant spectacle 
of imperfection, to this chiaroscuro of human life, that we are in 
danger of ultimately losing the power of recognizing a character 
of perfect moral purity, when presented before us. And it is an 
undeniable fact, that the knowledge of human nature on which 
many plume themselves, ends in the miserable and comfortless 
result of absolute incredulity. But that acquaintance with man 
which leads to such a conclusion really begins with the principle 
of mistrust ; and there must have been beforehand an inclination 
to discover defects, and either not to pay attention to the good, 
or to attribute it to bad motives. Besides, such a knowledge 
is proved to be spurious, by the fact of its giving a result that 
tends to destroy our best powers, faith and love, and that blights 
at the root all enthusiastic effort for the welfare of mankind. If 
we look upon men with an unprejudiced eye, we shall find what 
is undeniably good and noble. 1 Men of the soundest understand- 
ing, the keenest perceptions, and of the widest experience of life, 
testify by their example that the possession of these qualifications 
for judging does not necessarily lead to the renunciation of all 
faith in humanity. They show that it depends not so much on 

1 It is indeed true that we cannot point out with mathematical certainty the 
motives of action, on which our judgment of human morality mainly depends : 
but if we seek to deduce from this absence of demonstrative evidence a 
general rule, we fall inevitably into that moral scepticism whose effect is to 
undermine all human relationships, and which cannot therefore be just. It 
takes away at once all ground for the formation of a judgment recognizing the 
one, and reprobating the other : we then distinguish between good and evil 
only in conception, never as actually realized in the world ; and we are deprived 

N 



194 



ARGUMENTS AGAINST THE 



the extent of experience, as on the disposition with which we 
examine the facts of life, whether we come to distrust human 
virtue, or retain our faith in it. There is an unquestionable 
analogy between faith in humanity and faith in God. Neither 
the one nor the other is strictly grounded on experience, but has 
its seat in the depths of the soul. This faith lies properly beyond 
experience, and is in fact that higher energy which ought to in- 
spire us with confidence and communicate strength, in the midst 
of all that is apparently contradictory. Misfortune may not 
shake our faith in the true God, and as little may our experience 
of the immorality of individuals destroy our confidence in huma- 
nity. Besides, this faith in its deepest ground is not confidence 
merely in the individual, but in the entirety of humanity, in the 
idea and holy destiny of man : — which destiny must be attainable? 
being of the appointment of the Creator Himself. The moral 
idea remains true, though contradicted by a thousand expe- 
riences. All experience is but partial : and consequently, we are 
not warranted in drawing the conclusion, that what we find within 
our narrow circle of vision is universally actual and necessary, 
or that what we do not find there is utterly impossible. Man is, 
and will continue to be, destined to the realization of that which 
is highest, and must consequently, with the help of God, be cap- 
able thereof. Holiness and love, not selfishness and sin, are 
the eternal law of his being. What ground have we, then, to 
justify us in believing, that universally and necessarily there can 
be only exceptions to this law, that there never can be a perfect 

of a standard according to which the surrounding world may be estimated. But 
the mind of man, when unaffected by sophistries, never doubts for a moment 
that it is possible to recognize good and evil even in our ordinary life, — not in- 
deed infallibly, but yet with a high degree of certainty, not from a single action 
alone, but yet from a whole life, not on a superficial, but yet on a more deeply 
penetrating examination. In the totality of a man's conduct, of his words and 
deeds and temper, the ground of his life, and the aim to which it is directed 
are surely revealed. Compare Reinhard's Moral, Th. iii., cap. i. § 369. 



POSSIBILITY OF SINLESSNESS. 



195 



fulfilment of it ? If we have a strong and living faith in the 
destiny of humanity, we shall be always ready and willing to ac- 
knowledge that some one can become, and to recognize that 
One actually has become, what man should properly be — an 
image of his holy Creator. If we have sufficient evidence to 
warrant our believing that there has been such a realization, no 
experiences of a contrary kind, however numerous, should prevent 
our reception of this one fact. Nor must we allow it to stand in 
our way, that this has not, like facts of an opposite character, 
lain within the range of our own direct experience. A resolution 
in moral matters to admit only that which falls under our own 
observation, would make our circle of vision an exceedingly con- 
tracted one. Not only would our faith in the absolutely pure 
virtue of the Redeemer be overthrown, but even our faith in the 
moral excellence of all the good and great men who existed in 
former times, or who now exist beyond the limits of our acquaint- 
ance. The moral nature of man devolves upon him the duty of 
believing in general in higher virtue, even when it does not occur 
within the sphere of his own individual experience : and we can- 
not therefore rightly refuse faith in a perfect and pure virtue, 
when there is satisfactory evidence of the fact of its historical 
realization. 

It may, however, be further asked, — Is it not an universal, in- 
dubitable truth, that the very nature of man renders it impossible 
for him ever to be perfectly good ? Does not experience show 
us that, to be human at all, involves both a sinful bias and sinful 
acts ? The question thus started is of a very comprehensive 
nature, and we shall do well to examine 3 one by one, the different 
elements of which it is constituted. 1 

1 The difficulties which may be raised in this connection are most fully ex- 
pressed by de Wette in his Christliche Sittenlehre, Th. i., pp. 182-193, where 
the entire section on Christus der Heilige should be compared. De Wette 
speaks more positively in regard to the sinlessness of Jesus in his work en- 



196 



ARGUMENTS AGAINST THE 



First of all, it may be urged as a difficulty, that, " if we ascribe 
to Jesus the possibility of sinning, we must also conceive of Him 
as subject to sinfulness : for sinfulness consists precisely in the 
possibility of sin, and not in the sum of actually committed sins. 
Consequently, to pronounce Jesus free from actual sin, is not to 
declare Him free from original sin. Sinfulness implies necessarily 
a minimum of sin, and therefore excludes absolute sinlessness." 1 
On the assumption that Jesus was a true, a real man, it cannot 
of course be denied that it was possible for Him to sin. This 
possibility is directly involved in the nature of man as a being 
who is made subject to moral laws, and who is therefore free. 
And if we assume that the possibility of sin means exactly the 
same as sinfulness, then it must be at once conceded that a germ 
of sin is implanted along with a moral nature. But the term 
sinfulness manifestly expresses far more than the mere possibility 
of sinning. Along with the latter, we can conceive of the free- 
will being in a state of perfect indifference to evil or good, and 
of a development from a condition of simple innocence to one of 
conscious virtue, without the intervention of sin. The former, on 
the contrary, presupposes a positive inclination to evil, from 
which there then arises actual sin. Hence, in acknowledging the 
possibility of sin in Jesus, we do not at all concede the existence 
of sinfulness, or even of the least trace of actual evil. 

A further question is as to whether, besides that possibility of 
sin which we necessarily attribute to a personal being as such, 
there was not in Jesus that bias towards evil which we term ori- 
ginal sin. The answers given to this question vary, of course, 
according to the different modes of thought on theological mat- 
titled, Das Wesen des Christlichen Glaubens, § 53, p. 272 ff. The mention here 
made of the earlier doubts of this worthy and excellent man, has no personal 
object. Such views, as having 1 once been published, must have a place in a scien- 
tific treatment of the present subject, 
i De Wette, Sittenlelire, Th. i., p. 188. 



POSSIBILITY OF SINLESSNESS. 



197 



ters in general. We merely evade, not solve, the difficulty, when 
we reply by affirming that there is no such thing as original sin, 
— when we assert that man enters life innocent, in the full posses- 
sion of his moral powers, and that there is nothing in himself to 
prevent his development being perfectly pure, especially when 
circumstances are favourable. But this answer, even whilst 
meeting present difficulties, involves us in others, and has besides 
no sufficient foundation. The voice of wisdom in all ages, our 
own daily experience, and the judgment of the Scriptures, do not 
permit us to doubt that there is in human nature a ruling inclina- 
tion to sin. The mere denial thereof cannot satisfy a man of 
deeper reflection, and does not loosen the knot. Still it may be 
urged that, in whatever way we may understand the doctrine of 
inherited sinfulness, or of original sin, moral freedom must be 
assumed to be an original and indestructible attribute of human 
nature. This is equally claimed by Christianity, and by our 
moral consciousness. Despite the tendency to evil which we feel 
within us, we are conscious of an indestructible power to resist 
the attractions of sin, of a capacity to determine ourselves for the 
good. It is only on this supposition that we can be held respon- 
sible for our actions, and guilty for performing such as are of an 
evil character, when we could have restrained ourselves. In that 
certainty of freedom which forbids the assumption that we are 
under the necessity of sinning, a guarantee is given that it is 
possible to share human nature, and yet to be free from sin. If 
man is in any single instance unconstrained to evil, and able to 
choose the good, he must be so in all cases ; and if good were 
actually chosen in all cases, there would be a realization of sin- 
lessness. But even this answer does not thoroughly suffice : nor 
is it essentially different from the former one. Like that, too, it 
originates in a Pelagian cast of thought. Man does unquestion- 
ably possess freedom even in his present condition, but not as a 
pure and unweakened power. He has it now only in the shape of 



198 



ARGUMENTS AGAINST THE 



a capacity to become free, and the process by which he attains 
to real freedom lies through actual sin. A pure development of 
the power of freedom is possible to it only in its uncorrupted 
state. If, whilst free, sinfulness attaches to us, our freedom must 
evidently be limited and hindered, and at our best state we shall 
feel, at the very least, that we labour under a " difficulty of good," 1 
that an inward discord, a conflict attends us, which is irrecon- 
cilable with complete sinlessness. If Jesus had had to over- 
come an innate bias to evil, we must have looked on His nature 
and character as stained, however perfect His virtue might other- 
wise have been. 

On the assumption of universal sinfulness among men, there 
remains therefore no other way of accounting for the perfect 
purity of the life of Jesus, than by supposing that a creative 
Divine influence was at work in the origin of His personality. 2 
Because God so willed and effected it, a new link was introduced 
by a direct creation into the chain of sinful life ; and the indivi- 
dual thus created was endowed with pure, fresh, and unblemished 
moral powers, in order that a perfectly holy, godly life might be 
first realized in Him, and then through Him in humanity. The 
objection, that the case is in this way transferred to the region of 
the miraculous but not explained, need not mislead us. The 
new commencement of moral and religious life in Christ is un- 
doubtedly a miracle, and inexplicable save on the assumption of 
direct Divine causality. The new thing, however, which is thus 
called into existence, is not contrary to, but the real re-esta- 
blishment of, human nature in its original purity. Christ is the 
second and true Adam. Furthermore, the only condition on 

1 Augustine calls it difficultas boni in his earlier writings. 

2 " All individual life rests on an original and specifically determined form 
of being, which points back to the Creator :" Hase, Leben Jesu, § 32, p. 58. For 
a further carrying out of this proposition in relation to the sinlessness of Jesus, 
see the Streitschriften, Heft 3 } pp. 105-109. 



POSSIBILITY OF SINLESSNESS. 



199 



which we can satisfactorily account for the existence of Chris- 
tianity, or, in fact, of true religion at all, is, that God Himself 
enters into actual fellowship with humanity, and exerts a creative 
influence on its development. This, again, is inconceivable, except 
on the supposition that the influence manifests itself in a special 
manner in individual persons, and in every portion of the being 
of these persons. Whoever believes that the foundation, pro- 
gress, and perfection of the religious life, are possible, apart from 
immediate Divine working towards that end, let him try if he 
can furnish a better solution. 

It has been objected, and with greater apparent force, that 
in this way we destroy the significance of the life of Jesus as an 
example to men. If Jesus was in His origin free from sinful 
taint through special Divine influence, and if He was endowed 
with new moral power by special Divine gift, He cannot, in re- 
spect of moral perfection, be a true, binding example to those 
who are not similarly favoured. Without doubt, what is said 
about Christ as a pattern to men, must be understood with a 
proper limitation and distinction. Christ is not our model in the 
sense that we are under obligation at once and essentially to be 
as He was, but in the sense that we ought to become like Him. 
He is, and will ever remain, the Saviour : we — are the saved. A 
Redeemer should possess original and permanent freedom from 
sin : in the redeemed the dominion of sin is necessarily presup- 
posed. No one of us is expected or called to be a saviour : but 
we are invited and urged to allow ourselves to be saved. For 
this reason we cannot in all respects be as Christ: through Him, 
however, we may attain deliverance from sin, and be gradually 
transformed into His glorious likeness. Our faith in Christ as 
our Redeemer necessarily involves a consciousness of His specific 
difference from us. But we are not on this ground freed from 
all obligation to follow His example. Holiness must ever remain 
a standard for us, even although, as realized in a particular per- 



200 



ARGUMENTS AGAINST THE 



son, it be due to the working of a higher than human power. 
Even God Himself, in His absolute holiness, is set before us as 
the moral ideal after which we ought to strive. But God in His 
absoluteness is too highly exalted, too far beyond us, to be 
efficiently our example ; and therefore One has been given us 
which is thoroughly human, and which has been carried out in 
all the relations and conditions of life. There was only one con- 
dition on which such an example of perfect purity could be ex- 
hibited to us, and this was, that He, through whom it was to be 
realized, should not share the common tendency to sin, nor be 
entangled in the conflict with it, — that He should be endowed 
with powers in full integrity, and be capable of a jpure and 
perfectly normal development. Hence we must remain unre- 
deemed, or the character of Him who comes to redeem us must 
be without stain. We may object that this constitutes an ad- 
vantage over us ; but it is at the same time the highest advan- 
tage for all, because unless He surpassed us in this respect it 
would have been impossible for humanity to attain to the pos- 
session of that which is best, highest, and most saving. Christ 
is not thereby rendered less fit to be an example to us, any 
more than great geniuses are prevented from being patterns 
to ordinary men by the eminent gifts with which they are 
naturally endowed. In fact, it cannot be otherwise. If that only 
could be acknowledged as typical, which works its way up with 
difficulty out of an ordinary and commonplace condition, nothing 
truly great and worthy of imitation would ever find realization 
among men. We know, however, that even in our ordinary life, 
no real and genuine progress can be made, unless men arise who 
are possessed of extraordinary natural talents ; and we ought to 
acknowledge the necessity of this to be still greater, when an 
example is to be given us, and a path marked out for us, in con- 
nection with that which is highest, in respect to the relation of 
man to God, 



POSSIBILITY OF SINLESSNESS. 



201 



Again, it is argued, that " so far as the virtue of Jesus was 
really human, there must have been a sensuous element in it, 
for no human virtue is quite free from such an admixture : but 
imperfection is involved in such a subjection to the law of our 
sensuous nature, and thus an end is put to any absolute moral 
perfection." 1 There is an element of truth also in this observa- 
tion. We cannot deny the presence, in the virtue of Jesus, of 
that sensuous admixture which gives the freshness of life to our 
own willing and acting. Body and spirit in Him were connected 
in the same manner as in other men. But there is nothing to 
justify the assertion, that there is something intrinsically sinful 
in this sensuous element of our volitions and acts. Provided 
that the highest principle of our constitution, the spirit (rmeuma\ 
is the ultimate and decisive source of our volitions and acts, they 
are good, notwithstanding that some portion of their freshness, 
impulse, life, is due to a sensuous element. Indeed, such an ad- 
mixture is inevitable, either at the origin, or during the execution 
of our purposes. The sensuous part of man's being is only evil 
when it sets itself in opposition to the higher, the pneumatic part. 
By branding it as essentially sinful, we necessarily bring an accusa- 
tion against the Author of our nature. 2 But it is impossible to show 
that the sensuous impulses in J esus, were, in any single case, to an 
unwarrantable degree the moving spring of a determination of His 
will : or that, when called into natural play, they ever came into 
conflict with His higher nature. The general character of His 
words and acts is not passionate excitement, but the purest and 
most deliberate calmness, the highest self-possession. 3 

Still less clear is it, how, without regarding the whole creation 

1 De Wette, Sittenlehre, Th. i., p. 88. 

2 Compare Muller's Doctrine of Sin, i., 405 ff., and with special reference to 
the perfect holiness of Jesus, pp. 439-442, where also there is particularly a re- 
futation of Tollner's Theologische Untersuchangen, B. i., p. 2. 

3 This is beautifully unfolded in Sack's Apologetik, 2d ed., p. 207 ff. 



202 



ARGUMENTS AGAINST THE 



with the Gnostics, as a defection from God, we can speak, in con- 
nection with Jesus, of the " guilt of being finite :" how such ex- 
pressions can be used, as that " Jesus was after all, as a human 
being, finite, and consequently was subject to the limitations and 
guilt of finitude." 1 It is unquestionably true, that a being can only 
attain to that kind of perfection for which it is fitted by the 
measure of its nature. Finite beings are perfect under finite 
conditions : the Infinite is absolutely perfect. But no guilt rests 
on the former because its perfection is only finite, if it do but 
fulfil the destiny of its nature. The creature may be perfect as 
a creature, and any charge of guilt which we lay to the account 
of its finiteness falls back ultimately on the Creator Himself, who 
was not content to exist in solitary absoluteness, to be only the 
ground of His own being, but created besides, and outside of Him- 
self, a world subject to finite limits and conditions. 

Last of all, the objection has been raised from this side, that 
" the feeling of humility in Jesus must have arisen, from a con- 
sciousness of imperfection and limitation, from some minimum of 
sinfulness. Such a feeling is essential to the moral perfection of 
humanity: it is the means by which man frees himself from the 
guilt which cleaves to him : consequently Jesus was in this re- 
spect also our pattern, that He humbled Himself as a finite being 
before His heavenly Father." 2 If we are to uphold the unity of 
the inward life and being of Jesus, we cannot admit this assump- 
tion. For the same Jesus who declared Himself free from all 
sin, who was conscious of being one with God, who felt that 
He was revealing the Father in His whole life, cannot have 
humbled Himself from any sense of moral failing and guilt, but 
only from a feeling of dependence on God, and of condescending 
love towards mankind. And, in fact, humility does not necessarily 
imply or form part of a consciousness of indwelling sin. The 

1 De Wette, Sittenlehre, Th. L, pp. 189 and 192. 

2 De Wette, Sittenlehre, Th. i., p. 192. 



POSSIBILITY OF SINLESSNESS. 



203 



latter is rather a feeling of guilt. Humility consists really in a 
modest estimate of the good which pertains to us, in a mild judg- 
ment of others who are of less worth, and in the conviction that 
all the good we possess is not our desert, but the gift of a higher 
power and a higher love. In this sense we do find humility in 
Jesus. Never did He seek to exhibit His high superiority so as 
to dazzle those around Him. Ever was He gentle and conde- 
scending, in order that a ray of His light and love might pene- 
trate and gladden even the weakest and lowest. And in all that 
He did and said, He referred to the great source of truth and 
goodness, to the Father, who gave to the Son to have in Himself 
the fulness of Divine life. In this last connection it was, that 
the humility of Jesus peculiarly manifested itself — in the manner 
in which He completely subordinated Himself to God, despite ail 
His consciousness of dignity and independence. He did only 
that which was pleasing to the Father : His works and words 
were only those which the Father prepared and sent Him to per- 
form and speak : His whole life was directed to glorify the name 
of the Father: He confessed that the Father was greater than 
the Son : yea, He even declined for Himself the appellation good, 
and would have it applied only to God. This very refusal, as 
expressed in the well-known words (Matthew xix. 17 ; Mark x, 
18; Luke xviii. 19), Why callest thou Me good? One only is 
good, even God, has, however, often been a source of perplexity 
and difficulty, and has been employed as a striking argument in 
opposition to the testimony of Jesus to His own sinlessness. 1 
But only one who denies altogether the sinlessness of Jesus could 
use it for such a purpose. Whoever does recognize His sinless- 
less 2 can never fall into the absurdity of wishing to maintain that 
Jesus Himself expressly testified to the contrary. And of a 

1 Among" moderns by Strauss, Glaubenslehre, ii. 192 ; and by Eritzsche, Com- 
mented, de KvetfA. Jesu, ii., part 1, p. 7. 

2 As Eritzsche does. 



204 



ARGUMENTS AGAINST THE 



surety, the same Jesus who felt Himself to be one with God, 
and who was conscious that His whole being was an expression of 
the Divine nature, could not have said that God alone was good 
in the sense of accusing Himself and implying His own want 
of moral goodness. Nor did He intend to be thus understood. 
Apart from their reference to the rich young man, His words are 
to be regarded only as an expression of the same humble subor- 
dination to God, which moved Him to speak of the Father as 
sending, teaching, sanctifying, and glorifying Him, — in a word, as 
the Greater, whilst at the same time He was conscious of being 
one with God. Moreover, the Father must ever be regarded 
as the source not only of all being, but of all the good- 
ness of being : He is the absolutely Good, One who in His 
holiness is eternally the same. Contrasted then with the Father, 
the Son is one who as a man undergoes a gradual development 
in holiness ; one, who rises to the perfection of Divine glory 
through trials, conflicts, and sufferings. We can entertain no 
other view of Jesus as far as regards His human nature, however 
urgently we may insist on His sinlessness. And that the apos- 
tolic mind conceived of Him thus, is evident from many portions 
of the Gospels, and especially from the representation given of 
Jesus in the Epistle to the Hebrews (ii. 10-18, v. 7-9), as 
One who was made perfect 1 by suffering and temptation, and 
who, on that very ground, is such a High Priest as was needed by 
and fitted for humanity. What wonder, then, that we find testi- 
mony to this from the mouth of Jesus Himself? To Him, the 
Father was not only in a general respect the greater, but also 
specially in respect of the good in the highest sense, — in re- 
spect of that good which, abiding in eternal, unchanging fulness, 
is the source of all the goodness which manifests itself in time : 

i On the nXi'iuffis of Christ, a conception which still stands in need of a more 
accurate investigation, compare Tholuck in the second appendix to his Com- 
mentary on the Ep. to the Hebrews. 



POSSIBILITY OF SINLESSNESS. 



205 



in a word, God was the alone Good. In this sense, Jesus did not 
wish Himself to be called good in conjunction with the Father. 
He could not have expressed His humility before God more simply 
and strongly than He did : and yet it is quite clear from the 
connection, that His expression thereof was characterized by per- 
fect fitness, and did not contradict His other utterances. 1 

1 It is possible that these difficult words may not have originally stood in 
Matthew. Griesbach and Lachmann omit them as spurious in their editions 
of the New Testament. But in any case they are to be found in the two other 
synoptical Gospels, Mark and Luke. The difficulty arising- from Christ's wish- 
ing the predicate, " good," to be applied only to God is therefore unavoidable. 
Nor can the difficulty be removed by maintaining that special emphasis should 
be laid on the word kiyu?, as if Jesus had only meant that He did not wish to 
be ceremoniously styled good, like the proud Jewish Doctors. In such a case 
He would have said, " None is to be called good, but God alone." As little 
can help be found in the explanation to which the older orthodox theologians 
resorted, (see Wolfs Curse Philol. i, 283,) according to which, the intention of 
Jesus was, indirectly to lead the young man to a recognition of His divinity. 
The youth was to reason thus:— "If only God is good, Jesus Christ, inas- 
much as He is good, must also be God." Wimmer's view, in an essay in the 
Studien und Kritiken, 1845, i. pp. 115-153, is decidedly too artificial, and 
not quite in analogy with the general usage of words. He insists most strongly 
that the conjunction il ^ is used in the sense of "if not," and takes the mean- 
ing of the passage to be — " No one is to be called good if the one God is not 
called good, that is, if He is not recognized as the one sole condition of all the 
goodness of being." The simplest solution of the problem is this : The young man, 
who was evidently well disposed, but somewhat self-complacent, satisfied with 
the righteousness of his own works (ver. 20), had employed the address, hMtrxaXi 
ayxOi, as a title customarily given to Rabbins, (see Bibl. Bremens., Class, iv. p. 
1081) superficially, and without attaching any meaning to it. Jesus takes hold 
of the expression, and seeks, by opening up the whole significance and depth of 
the word &y»66$, to direct the thoughts of the young man to the highest source 
of the truly good, from which source alone he can gain genuine moral goodness. 
Whether or not we are to suppose, with de Wette, that Jesus here intended to 
pronounce the question about the truly good an inscrutable one, or to hold with 
Julius Muller, that He indicated that the answer to the question lay very near 
at hand, we need not attempt to decide. At all events Jesus replied to the 
young man, who had already done good works, but sought now to know the 
real good, that good which leads to eternal life, " Only One is good, even God : 
in Him is the fulness and fountain of all goodness :" from which it naturally 



206 



ARGUMENTS AGAINST THE 



SECTION SECOND. 

ARGUMENTS DRAWN FROM THE NATURE OF THE MORAL IDEA. 

In the last place, a word must be said on the position taken 
on the subject under consideration in recent speculative and 
critical systems of thought. 1 They expressly call in question 
the sinlessness of Jesus. Philosophical arguments mainly are 
employed to this end ; that is, arguments derived from the nature 
of the moral idea and its development in humanity : we are therefore 
under the necessity of meeting them on the same ground. 

followed that the true good could* only be attained by him or by any other man 
in fellowship with God. At the same time, however, Jesus pointed him to the 
commandments of God as the expression of the Divine will : and when the 
youth assured II im that he had kept these commands, Jesus further required 
that which is highest of all, that which is especially difficult, partly with the 
view of enabling him to know himself truly, and partly in order to lead him to 
the cardinal point, the need of fellowship with God. When Jesus, therefore, 
in accomplishing this purpose, declines for Himself the epithet " good," He 
cannot have meant to say that He was not good in the human sense, but only 
that the word, in the depth and fulness in which it is used by Himself, belongs 
to God alone. See the commentaries of de Wette, Olshausen, Meyer on 
Matthew xix. 17, and Julius Miiller's Doctrine of Sin, vol. i. pp. 143-145. For 
remarks on the reading in Matthew, and for an explanation of the passage, 
consult also Teschendorf, Dissert, crit. et exeget. de Ev. Matth. xix. 16. Lips. 
1840 ; and Theile's review of the same in TheoL Lit. Blatt, 1841, Febr. No. 21. 

1 The literature of this subject is well known. I therefore merely mention, 
on the one side, Strauss's Sclilussabhandlung zum Leben Jesu, and the Chris-- 
tological portion of his Glauhenslehre, especially pp. 153-240, vol. ii. : on the 
other side, the essays of Alb. Schweizer on the Dignitdt des Heligion- 
stifters, in the Studien und Kritiken, 1834 ; and on the Life of Jesus, by Strauss, 
also in the Studien und Kritiken, Heft 3, 1837 ; my own treatises in the work 
Ilistorisck oder Mythisch, Harab. 1838; Fischer's Prilfung der Strausnschm 
Glauhenslehre, Tub. 1842, Heft 2, p. 10 ff; and de Wette'sZtas Wesen des Christ- 
lichen Glauhens, § 6 and § 46. 



POSSIBILITY OF SINLESSNESS. 



207 



Modern speculation does indeed acknowledge in Jesus a cer- 
tain greatness of an indefinable kind, in virtue of which He was 
capable of being the " occasion" of the rise of a new faith : but 
it denies Him a specific dignity distinguishing Him from all other 
men. It seeks, besides, to reduce the traditions about Christ to 
the measure of ordinary human history mainly by the application 
of two fundamental axioms. One of these axioms is, " that the 
first in a series of developments cannot at the same time be the 
greatest :" the other is, " that it is not the manner of the idea 
to realize itself in a single individual, but only in the sum total of 
individuals, in the genus." If the first axiom held universally and 
necessarily true, we should be driven to conclude that the moral 
greatness of Jesus did not surpass the succeeding links of the 
chain of development realized in the Christian world. Even the 
relative eminence of Jesus, His character as our pattern, would 
thus be destroyed, And even if the former axiom were shown 
to be inadmissible, and there remained only the second, this latter 
would, if applied to Jesus, at the least exclude the possibility 
of believing in His absolute moral greatness, in His perfect 
holiness, and consequently do away with His typical relation to 
men. 

There is undoubtedly a relative truth in both these proposi- 
tions : but we deny that they hold absolutely true, and we dis- 
pute the justice of the application which has been made of them 
to the Founder of Christianity. It is perfectly correct that in 
certain spheres of life the first in a series of developments is not 
at the same time the most perfect — the commencement is not also 
the fulfilment. But it is no less true that in other spheres the 
first of a series must be also the highest, as certainly as — that 
there would be no development at all were it otherwise. For 
our present purpose, we shall distinguish between the spheres of 
science, of art, and the moral and religious life. In the first de- 
partment, all is dependent on the range of knowledge : in the 



2G8 



ARGUMENTS AGAINST THE 



second, on the inventive intuition of genius, and the distinctive 
capacity to give shape and form to that which is imagined : 
in the third, the entire inner being and life, which expresses itself 
in a peculiar consciousness relative to the position of the indi- 
vidual towards humanity and God, is called into action. Know- 
ledge is by nature progressive, because, on the one hand, it is 
dependent on experience, whose circle is widened only gradually 
and by the co-operation of many elements ; and, on the other 
hand, because it is based on processes of thought, which become 
ever deeper in their course. Consequently, if this progress goes 
on unimpeded, the later inquirer ordinarily surpasses the earlier. 
Here the axiom mentioned previously, holds good as a general 
rule. It is not possible that one man should comprehend 
in himself all that can be known. Least of all can this be 
expected of him who is the pioneer of any special branch of 
science or knowledge. Every inquirer and knower is comple- 
mented by other inquirers and knowers. It is true, that at cer- 
tain epochs giant minds arise which either unite the elements 
they find at hand in higher combinations, or sagaciously antici- 
pate the future ; but even they cannot pass beyond certain 
definite limits, and it cannot fail that some of those who follow 
after may gain a higher eminence. But even in the domain of 
science it is very possible that one who is the first should also 
be the greatest of the series, in so far as a distinctive, genial, 
intuitional talent is necessary to discovery in certain branches of 
knowledge, — notably, for example, in philosophy. This is, how- 
ever, far from being invariably the case ; and it will be still 
more rarely so, the more we trust to experience to supply us with 
the materials of knowledge and to determine our results, and 
the more, patient investigation becomes necessary. The posi- 
tion of things in connection with art is quite different. There, 
only those individuals accomplish anything great who are en- 
dowed with special creative powers and with remarkable talents 



POSSIBILITY OF SINLESSNESS. 209 

of execution : there, the most important works owe their origin 
not to a co-operation of many, but to the intuitions and technical 
skill of individual genius : there, in fact, precisely that which is 
highest is committed to the hands of individuals. In this depart- 
ment, — supposing that the masters w T ho arise, possessed of higher 
genius, do form schools, — they ordinarily surpass their scholars 
and successors, and thus, whilst first in the order of time, are also 
relatively the most eminent. It is even conceivable, that a master 
endowed with the very highest powers, should produce works in 
his department, which remain pre-eminent and unequalled in all 
subsequent times. The case is different, again, in the mat- 
ter of religion. Religion has indeed an element of knowledge in 
common with science, and one of intuition and representation in 
common with art ; but in its inmost nature, it is a peculiar modifi- 
cation and state of the inner life, of man at the centre and in the 
totality of his being,— it is the conscious reference of our entire 
life, as individuals, to God. Here the personality, as such, is all 
in all. Everything depends on the manner in which it stands 
inwardly related to God. To speak of the gradual introduction 
of an essentially new form of a principle of religion, by the 
combined exertions of many, is almost preposterous ; for the life, 
the consciousness which constitutes it, is not the result of compo- 
sition and amalgamation, but must find a seat originally, entirely, 
and undividedly, in some one soul, from which it then passes to 
others. He through whom a new religious life and consciousness 
are produced in others is the founder of a religion ; and he will 
naturally be the most perfect as well as the first, in the series of 
development of which he is the originating cause. Only once can 
a peculiar religious consciousness be said to dawn for the first 
time : only once can there be a really original religious life, and 
of necessity the life and consciousness will be present with the 
greatest freshness, purity, and energy in the spirit of him in 
whom they take their rise. This statement is moreover most 

o 



210 



ARGUMENTS AGAINST THE 



distinctly borne out by the conduct of every new religious com- 
munity. There never existed an historical religion which did 
not hold its founder to have been possessed by its spirit in the 
highest degree, and to have exemplified it most faithfully and 
fully. He who should surpass the founder of the system to which 
he belongs, in the intensity and energy of his religious life and con- 
sciousness, would himself become the founder of a new religion, 
and be the first in a new series of developments. 

A speculative system which treats religion as a mode and 
branch of knowledge, and considers it in contrast with philosophy 
but an imperfect, elementary, childish knowledge, may find it 
very natural to conceive of piety as gradually progressing from a 
lower to a higher state, (like all things else,) and may consequently 
be unable to consider the founder of a religion, as even relatively 
the greatest ; for he is in its view only the occasion, not the real 
cause of its existence. But it is quite incredible that such should 
be the actual state of the case. In one aspect, undoubtedly, 
religion may be classed as knowledge ; that is, so far as it is or 
involves a doctrinal system. On this side, religion may undergo 
a development through the co-operation of many. This is the 
domain of science, especially of theological science, and in it the 
later may far surpass the earlier. But surely the more recent 
theological science is generally acknowledged to have gained at 
least one step, — to have established the principle, that religion is 
not properly knowledge ; that Christianity, in particular, is not 
originally a system of doctrine ; and that the nature and functions 
of theology are quite distinct from those of religion. 1 In reli- 
gion there is ever an element which is primitive, underived, lirect : 
which does not gradually arise, but is present perfectly, un- 
dividedly, and originally, in the founder, and this is the case 
simply on account of its being life, consciousness, a peculiar 

1 See among others the well-known work of de Wette, Religion und Theo- 
logie, 2d Ed., 1821. 



POSSIBILITY OF SINLESSNESS. 



211 



state of the whole soul. No thought of individuals supplement- 
ing each other can be entertained in this connection. The one 
must possess entirely that which constitutes the peculiarity of the 
religion, or he cannot be said to have the religion at all. When, 
however, it has once taken its rise in any soul, others can never 
lay claim to it as an original, but only as a derived possession : 
and he who was its originator must always be considered the 
greatest in the series of development of which he was also the 
first. And in fact he is ever recognized as such by those who 
constitute the series. This is the only way in which religion, as 
a determinate form of life, is realized and established. To main- 
tain the contrary, — that those who follow after should surpass 
the founder, — is to mistake the nature of religious life, and to 
apply to it laws which elsewhere hold true, but here are utterly 
out of place. 

Still Jesus might, as the Pounder of Christianity, have been 
the greatest within the Christian community, without being there- 
fore absolutely perfect. In such a case He would be relatively 
our standard, but not absolutely our prototype, as He is on the 
supposition of His sinless holiness. Against regarding Him as 
absolutely our prototype, the same critical philosophy has urged, 
that " it is not the manner of the idea to realize itself in one 
individual and grudgingly to deny itself to the rest ; it realizes 
itself in the totality of individuals, in the race. Consequently, 
where an individual is represented to be the absolute embodiment 
of the idea, there is a transference to it of that which properly 
holds good only of the genus, and the individual must therefore 
stand merely as a symbol of the totality." In this objection also 
there is an element of truth. The idea does undoubtedly realize 
itself in humanity as a whole. Otherwise what significance could 
we attach to the existence and development of mankind ? But, 
in order to get at the whole truth, the other side must be taken 
into consideration : namely, that the idea realizes itself in hu- 



212 



AKG-UMENTS AGAINST THE 



inanity only in and through individuals. So far from the former 
excluding the latter, it is not even conceivable without it. All 
development in humanity has its ground in personalities : the 
higher the sphere thereof, the more certainly is this true. All 
great men derive their chief significance and importance from 
the fact that their life is not something isolated, but that 
whilst itself having its foundation in the foregoing development of 
humanity, it passes over into and becomes part of the succeed- 
ing development. The more fully this can be affirmed of any 
person, the greater he is : and if there existed a spirit possessing 
the capacity to diffuse and expand its inner life till it should 
become the life of entire humanity, we should be under the neces- 
sity of esteeming it absolutely great. 

In connection, however, with the question as to the realization 
of the moral idea, everything will depend on the way in which 
we define the idea of humanity. The idea of humanity and of 
the perfect man does not relate to any particular, special sphere, 
such as that of science, or art, or political wisdom : nor can it 
be said to have attained its realization in the perfection of any 
endowment or inclination which belongs exclusively to one of 
these spheres. The idea of humanity comprises in itself, and our 
attention in defining it must be directed to, that which may be 
described as the universal task, the task which all men, as men, 
are bound to accomplish, whatever other powers or gifts may 
have fallen to their share. Now this absolutely universal thing 
is religion and morality. These belong to all men alike : they in 
fact constitute the true humanity of man— make man in the full 
sense man, in relation first to himself ; then to human society ; 
and specially in the highest relation of all, that, namely, to his 
holy Creator, Lawgiver, and Judge. If we recognize the high- 
est aim of all humanity, and of every individual, to be the 
attainment of perfection in piety and morality, or, in other words, 
the state of perfect union with God, and the holiness which has 



POSSIBILITY OF SINLESSNESS. 



213 



its ground therein, we shall be driven to concede at once, either 
that this ideal perfect condition is never realized at all, or, 
that such realization can only take place in the individual per- 
sonality first of all, and then, through it, in a greater or less 
number of other individuals ; not, however, in the race or genus, 
as such. The speculative point of view of modern criticism 
forbids it to entertain the supposition that the idea of humanity 
is never realized at all. A fundamental thought connected with 
its monism is, that the idea is by no means a something which 
lies beyond actuality, which is a mere " ought," but that it 
enters into a real existence. Nor can we admit such a sup- 
position ; for it is our conviction, that this idea of man, which we 
recognize as Divine, and which, as an idea in God, we cannot 
regard otherwise than as perfect, would be empty and unreal 
apart from such a realization. So far as the thoughts of the 
Divine mind have been made known to us, the highest among 
them is man. How then can we venture on an assertion which 
would imply that man was conceived as imperfect in the idea of 
him formed by God, as in conflict with and not fulfilling his des- 
tiny ? We can only believe him to have been conceived as perfect. 
If, moreover, we are necessitated to ascribe reality to the thoughts 
of God, we must assume that the Divine idea of man will in 
some way, and at some time, arrive at realization. But where is 
the realization to be met with, which we hold to be of necessity 
attained by the idea ? Modern speculation points us to the race, 
to the totality of human individuals forming a complement to 
each other. But even from this point of view, it is confessed, 
although not in the form of original sin, that men are all in a 
mass sinful and imperfect beings. 1 Whence then is the realiza- 
tion of the idea to come ? A series of imperfect beings, even if 
it is continued indefinitely, can never produce one that is per- 
fect : the totality of all sinful men will not originate one who is 

1 Strauss, Glaubenslehre, B. ii., p. 184. 



214 



ARGUMENTS AGAINST THE 



sinless. Besides, the notion of complementing, of a reciprocal 
filling up of deficiencies, is one that is utterly inapplicable to 
morality and religion, especially in their perfection. 1 They 
must either be perfectly and completely present, or not at all. 
If the individuals are not moral and religious, the race cannot be 
said to be so. In this method we should be driven to look 
upon the idea as a mere thing which might be. A goal would 
thus be set, towards which there might be an endless approxi- 
mation, but which could never be reached. Consequently the 
idea is either never realized at all, in which case it is no idea, 
but a mere fiction : or it is realized, where alone it can be, in 
the sphere of individual personality. 

In maintaining that the idea bestows itself in its fulness on 
one individual— a thing which we find, at all events, to be 
approximatively the fact in all departments, and specially in 
art — we are far from implying that it is for this reason niggardly 
towards all other individuals : we mean, in truth, just the reverse. 
That special bestowment on one, is the commencement of the his- 
torical process by means of which alone it is possible for all the 
rest to become participators. It is eminently requisite that the 
idea should be realized in an individual, when a perfect manifesta- 
tion of God is to be made, when a perfect atonement and deliver- 
ance are to be effected, and, by means of both, a perfect religion 
is to be established. The establishment of any definite historical 
religion presupposes one who is the greatest as regards that 

1 Julius Miiller remarks very justly, in his Christian Doctrine of Sin, i., 
265, that "the moral idea demands complete realization, a realization that em- 
braces all its fundamental aspects, in the life of the individual: it endures no 
division of the task : it does not allow one person to limit himself to the exer- 
cise of one virtue, and to leave to others to supplement him by the cultivation 
of the other virtues. It is one of the most flagitious attacks on the majesty of 
the moral idea, to refer its claims to a reciprocal compensation of men, which 
shall make up for the shortcomings of one by the virtues of the rest." (Feuer- 
bach, Wesen des ChristenthiineS) p. 205 ff.) 



POSSIBILITY OF SINLESSNESS. 



215 



stage of the religious life, one who is therefore a pattern : 
how much more must the establishment of the perfect religion 
presuppose one who is not only relatively the highest, but 
altogether perfect in the sphere of religion, and who is conse- 
quently our prototype. It is a sheer contradiction, to call Chris- 
tianity the absolute religion, and yet to declare its Founder 
morally or religiously imperfect. The fundamental requirement 
of all religion is, that God and man come together, that they 
enter into actual living fellowship : in a word, it is the union of 
God and man. This is allowed by modern speculation : but it 
makes the effecting thereof an infinitely light and easy matter 
by its pantheism, by its regarding God and man as immediately, 
naturally one. Moreover there is the further objection, that, 
from this point of view, sin, which necessarily separates between 
man and God, is left altogether out of consideration. If the 
reality and significance of sin are confessed, union with God can 
only be conceived as re-union, for the accomplishment of which 
sin must be broken down and taken away : in short, there must 
be an atonement and redemption, . which, in order to be funda- 
mental and lasting, must be based on a perfect revelation of the 
holy love of God. But all this can only be brought to pass by 
an individual — one who is Himself not under the dominion of sin, 
and who is in full communion with God, and who possesses the 
power of fitting others for, and receiving them into, the same 
fellowship of life. 1 The great aim of religion is the union of 

1 " The cavilling understanding may affirm that it is impossible to fulfil the 
necessary condition of a perfect redemption, which is, that a sinless man appear 
at the head of the human race, and form a society which shall be as universal 
and comprehensive as it is pure and holy ; urging as the reason, that the abso- 
lute can never become really manifest : but the consciousness possessed by 
the believer of the original purity and perfection of human nature, and his 
confidence in the Spirit of God, which is ever active in humanity, and in the 
creative power which it is constantly exercising, will never permit him to call 
that in question." — De Wette, Wesen des Christlichen Glaubens, § 46, p. 241. 



216 



ARGUMENTS AGAINST THE 



man with God: consequently, if any religion can claim justly 
to be the absolute one, it must be on the ground that its Founder 
realized this union perfectly in Himself : so completely, that 
every hindrance, that is, every trace of sin, was utterly removed 
out of the way. From this side also, therefore, we are led to 
the conclusion, either that a perfect religion is an eternal, never- 
fulfilled requirement, something which should, but never does, 
exist ; or that its Founder realized the religious idea origin- 
ally in Himself, and, as is directly implied in that fact, was 
sinless. 

The remarks just made touching sin and redemption rid us 
also, (as will be found if they are duly examined and weighed,) 
of an objection which has been brought from an entirely different 
quarter. It does not follow, we are told, that because we 
acknowledge the necessity of a realization of the idea, it can 
only take place in one individual. The premises given lead us 
rather to " expect a Divine kingdom of perfectly holy men at the 
termination of the present order of things, than to consider it a 
necessity, that a sinless individual should arise in the midst of 
history, who will be the origin of a new and holy development." 1 
In reply to this it might be said, that in general all higher 
developments commence with individuals, and that new principles 
must first find an embodiment in certain persons, from whom 
they are then diffused historically through the race. We will 
not, however, at present urge this consideration. We willingly 
allow that there is truth in the objection just mentioned. The 
idea does unquestionably, in its energy, claim to be realized by 
humanity in the aggregate ; and if the development of mankind 
were completely normal and orderly, this claim might find direct 
application in this connection. But the development of humanity 
has been disturbed by sin, and hindered in such a way that, 
unless the chain of sin be broken, no expectation can possibly be 
i See Jul. Miiller's Doctrine of Sin, i., 265. Observation. 



POSSIBILITY OF SINLESSNESS. 



217 



cherished that the perfect good will ever be realized amongst 
men. The removal of the hindrance, — in other words, a redemp- 
tion, — is therefore essentially necessary to the realization of the 
idea. Precisely for this reason was it essential that a sinless 
individual should appear in the course of human history ; for 
redemption, by its very nature, can only proceed from one point, 
and be effected by a personality specially fitted to that end. 
Whilst, however, we maintain that it was indispensable that the 
idea should first of all find a home in one individual, we must 
also keep in view that this took place mainly in order to the for- 
mation of a Divine kingdom of perfectly holy men, in the course 
and at the termination of history. From the mode in which we 
are compelled to conceive that the idea will unfold its power 
under the conditions given, we are at liberty to affirm its realiza- 
tion both in humanity as a whole, and in a single individual. 
The moral condition of mankind being what it is, the former can 
only take place as the result of the latter. It may be made 
matter of further objection, that we do not come to this result by 
a 'priori reasoning, seeing that the fact of sin and its prevalence is 
taken into account, and that, consequently, it is not valid in this 
connection. We readily grant that our argument is partially 
one from experience, but must at the same time claim it as a 
right, not to leave out of consideration, in a theological inquiry 3 
a fact like this, to which the consciousness of all men bears 
witness. 



i 



PAET FOURTH. 



INFERENCES FROM THE FOREGOING 
FACTS AND STATEMENTS. 



PAET FOUKTIL 



INFERENCES PROM THE FOREGOING. 



If it is clearly established that the life of Jesus in all its aspects 
was characterized by sinless and perfect holiness, a great step 
has unquestionably been made. Such a result gives us the cer- 
tainty that there has been a realization of that which is highest 
and best in the sphere of human life. But if we look at the case 
thoughtfully, we shall at once feel that we cannot limit ourselves 
to the mere recognition of the fact as such : we shall be irre- 
sistibly impelled to look carefully backwards and forwards from 
this point. Sinlessness is manifestly a condition which cannot 
possibly occur as something isolated and disconnected : it pre-* 
supposes the whole nature and character of the person of whom 
it is predicated, to be peculiar. Furthermore it will not suffice, 
nor indeed shall we be able, to look upon the person to whom we 
ascribe this peculiar conformation merely as existing for himself : 
we shall be compelled to attach to him a significance for the whole 
human race. A personality to which all are impelled to look up 
as sinless and pure, must necessarily exist for all, and stand in a 
peculiar and important relation to the inner life of all. This point 



222 



INFERENCES FROM THE FOREGOING. 



is consequently a central one. As from the sun in the centre of 
its planetary system, so light falls, from this point, primarily on 
the person of Jesus Himself, and then on all that which is con- 
nected with that person — in other words, on the fundamental parts 
of Christianity. It will be our object in this part of our work to 
bring clearly before the mind what may be seen in the light of 
this fact of the sinlessness of Jesus. We shall direct attention, 
first, to those consequences from the fact of sinlessness, which 
relate to the person of Jesus considered in itself ; and, secondly, 
to those which relate to His position with reference to the human 
race. 



INFERENCES IN RESPECT OF THE PERSON OF JESUS. 223 



CHAPTER I. 

INFERENCES IN RESPECT OF THE PERSON OF JESUS. 

In this connection, again, two things present themselves for con- 
sideration. Taking our start from the grand moral characteris- 
tics of the person of Jesus, our eye naturally falls in the first 
instance on its human side. Our first business therefore is to 
understand clearly what inferences in regard to the human nature 
of Jesus may be drawn from His sinlessness. But we shall find 
ourselves carried further, as we reflect that this phenomenon 
of a sinless and holy being is without a parallel in the world's 
history. There then arises the still more significant question, 
as to whether the explanation of this phenomenon can be found 
within the sphere of that which is merely human? We are 
compelled to inquire whether the sinlessness of Jesus does not 
lead to the recognition of a higher principle in Him, a principle 
which lies beyond human nature and human powers ? In order 
to answer these questions, we will consider the subject first in 
relation to the human side of the person of Jesus. 



SECTION FIRST. 

INFERENCES IN RESPECT OF THE HUMAN NATURE OF JESUS. 

As we have seen at an earlier stage of our inquiry, although 
sin has its true home, its central abode in the will, the range 



224 



INFERENCES IN RESPECT OP 



of its influence and action is not bounded by that sphere of our 
being. Alike in its origin and workings, it affects the whole spi- 
ritual and physical life of man. The same thing may be affirmed 
of sinlessness, only in an opposite direction. Wherever sinless- 
ness is realized, it cannot at all be conceived merely as a quality 
of our volitions and actions alone : we are necessitated to regard 
it as also the condition of our whole physical and spiritual life, as 
the character of our entire personality. 

This must be recognized first in relation to the intellectual 
faculties. The human mind, whatever divisions psychology may 
make of its powers, is not in reality separated into different de- 
partments. It is absolutely one and undivided, manifesting 
itself, however, in various ways, and exerting itself in different 
directions. The threads of our whole intellectual life are so 
subtly and finely interwoven, that to touch one is to move the 
whole ; that every impression affects in some way the whole 
spirit, and every action is the result of the complicated co-opera- 
tion of the most different energies of the mind. The man as 
thinking cannot be sundered from the man as feeling ; nor the 
man as willing from the man as knowing and beholding. In 
consequence of this undivided unity of the spirit, it is inconceiv- 
able that a person should be perfect in regard to religion and 
morality, to volitions and acts, — in a word, in respect to the life 
so far as it is expressed in action, and yet be defective and im- 
perfect in regard to knowledge. Only that which has been truly 
and clearly thought, can be represented and embodied in pure acts 
or expressions of the life. Every error in knowledge will mani- 
fest itself as a fault in the life. It is of course very possible that, 
by a one-sided cultivation, certain powers should arrive at a high 
degree of perfection, whilst there is a great lack in other respects, 
particularly in the matter of morality. Such we find to be the 
case in connection with the so-called virtuosi. Practice and 
theory do, however, stand in the closest relation to each other in 



THE PEKSON OF JESUS. 



225 



any one particular department, whatever it be. The higher the 
sphere of life, the more thoroughly does this principle apply : it is 
most true of the highest of all, of the moral and religious sphere. 
There every sin exerts a darkening influence on the intellect, and 
every error has a tendency to corrupt our volitions and acts. 
On the other hand, when our knowledge has the purity of truth, 
it acts with a purifying power on the life : and purity of life tends 
to enlighten, and to preserve the enlightenment of, the intellect. 
In fact, in this region there cannot be said to be a truth which 
belongs merely to one side. Whatever deserves the name is in 
reality life-truth — truth which expresses itself equally in know- 
ledge of God, in love to Him, and in readiness to do His will, 
It was not in an abstract, but in this full living sense, that Jesus 
called Himself the truth, and that the Apostles designated Him 
the light and life of humanity. From this it follows, that when- 
ever the inmost ground of the life and its entire manifestation are 
pure and perfect on the practical side, there must be the same 
purity and perfection on the theoretical side. Consequently the 
necessary presupposition and result of the sinlessness of Jesus 
was the entire absence of error in respect of things religious and 
moral. 1 This was a presupposition, inasmuch as he only can act 
and will in perfect holiness who truly knows God and His will : 
it was a result, because, in this sphere, pure volitions and acts 
ensure and maintain true knowledge. 

What has been advanced is important and of significance not 
merely for the intellectual side. The same observations hold equal- 
ly true of the emotional and imaginative powers ; and even of the 
physical basis of our life itself. In all these aspects there is, on 
the one hand, at the foundation of sin a false excitement which 
dissolves and destroys the true unity of life : and, on the other 

1 Hase, Leben Jesu, § 32, " Infallibility is the reverse side of religious per- 
fection in relation to the possession and the communication of knowledge." 
Compare Schleiermacher's Dogm. ii. 223, and his fourth Festpredigt. 



226 



INFERENCES IN RESPECT OF 



hand, sin itself becomes the basis of a process of dissolution and 
ruin which ever advances in the same direction. Under the 
influence of sinlessness, a process of an entirely contrary nature 
sets in and is continued. We cannot conceive of sinlessness as 
existing otherwise than in conjunction with a simple and harmo- 
nious movement of the feelings, with a pure and spotless activity 
of the imagination, and with such a condition of the physical life 
that the powers of the body, with well-ordered harmony, yield 
ready obedience to the dictates of the will, animated by holy love ; 
that, in a word, the body and its activity are a true and appro- 
priate expression of the spirit and its life. It will be, moreover, 
the source of an undisturbed and harmonious development of the 
life in all these aspects. Sinlessness is the natural moral fruit of 
a life whose whole condition and all whose functions are charac- 
terized by perfect purity. This is its necessary presupposition. 
And whilst it owes its existence to such a state, it is itself in 
turn the power which maintains the entire life in purity and 
health. 

The application of all this to Jesus, the sinless and perfectly 
holy One, is at once evident. To the spotless purity of His spirit 
and conduct corresponded the truth, depth, and certainty of His 
knowledge of Divine and human things. His was a knowledge 
which grasped the loftiest thoughts of God in regard to that 
redemption which was to embrace the whole human race: a 
knowledge which penetrated with incomparable certainty human 
nature, both generally, and as present in the individual men 
who surrounded, or came into contact with, Him. His know- 
ledge had of course, like ours, an historical foundation, but 
at the same time it proceeded from a direct intuition of spiritual 
realities, and, in virtue of its indwelling creative energy, called 
into existence an entirely new world of higher truths, — of truths 
which to the present day maintain their position as the bound- 
ary line for all profounder thinkers. In like manner must the 



THE PERSON OF JESUS. 



227 



holy beauty of all His displays of feeling, and the purity of all 
the productions of His imagination which are preserved to us. be 
universally recognized and confessed. All the movements of joy 
and sadness, of burning zeal and compassionating sympathy 
which are recorded of Him, bear a thoroughly human character, 
and yet were evidently in due subjection to the sway of a spirit 
which derived its impulses from the will of God and was regulated 
by the Divine law. His joy was tempered by seriousness, and 
His sadness by a hope full of confidence. His zeal was ever ac- 
companied by love, and a deep earnestness went side by side 
with His compassion. And are not all the productions of that 
imagination which we find at work, giving force and fulness to 
His discourses, and especially in the lovely imagery and glorious 
parables in which He clothed the deepest truths, characterized 
by a truly virgin purity, by the calmest and most genuine feeling 
for what is natural, and by a most vigorous capacity for the com- 
prehension of the Divine truth even of ordinary earthly things 1 1 
We find the greatest difficulty in saying anything very definite in 
regard to the physical condition and appearance of Jesus. There 
is very little in the shape of fact handed clown which might con- 
stitute a groundwork. Hence arose the possibility that very dif- 
ferent and even opposite views 2 could be entertained on the subject 

1 "Weisse, the author of the Reden uber die Zukunft der Evang. Kirche, p. 222, 
strikingly remarks, that " to the moral sinlessness of the Saviour there is a 
correspondent and equally inborn a?sthetical spotlessness in His manifestation ; 
and the moral greatness of His nature is reflected in the exalted beauty both 
of the thoughts He uttered, and of the expressions He employed to convey the 
fulness of His meaning, and which in all their force seem ever to have been at 
His command." 

2 It is well known that the older Fathers of the Church found, in some pas- 
sages of the Old Testament, hints respecting the external appearance of 
Jesus. They came, however, to opposite conclusions. From Psalm xlv. 2, 
Thou art fairer than the children of men, they judged Him to be of the highest 
beauty : from Isaiah liii. 2, He hath no form nor comeliness, there is no beauty 
that we should desire Him, they concluded that He was not beautiful, or that 



228 



INFEKENCES IN RESPECT OF 



at an early period of the history of the Church. But if we avail 
ourselves of the unquestionable right of judging of the external 
by the internal, and if, further, we carefully consider the impres- 
sion which Jesus made wherever He went, we shall not for a 
moment hesitate to believe and affirm that His physical con- 
formation must have been of such a nature that, as the organ 
of His spirit, it was ever in a healthy and well-ordered con- 
dition, and unresistingly obedient to His will : and further, that 
at the same time it gave adequate and full expression to 
the energy, the grandeur, the glory, and the beauty of His 
inner life. 

There is thus presented to us the picture of a pure humanity 
— of a humanity in all respects perfect. That to which we are 
thus led by a consideration of the central point of the sinless- 
ness of Jesus, finds the required confirmation in the historical 
facts which have been handed down to us. There arises now, how- 
ever, the still more weighty question as to whether, recognizing 
the sinlessness of Jesus, we can possibly remain in the circle of 
that which is merely human. Does not this very attribute and 
quality of the person of Jesus carry away our thoughts be- 
yond the limits of the human ? We have no hesitation in say- 
ing that such is the case. A view in which the holy perfec- 
tion of the life of Jesus is fully recognized, and which does 
not contemplate Him alone, but institutes a comparison be- 
tween Him and others in respect of this same thing, will form 

He was even unsightly. Such an application of the passages is inadmissible. 
From the internal we may draw conclusions respecting the external; and 
further, from the reports which the Gospels give us of the effect of the per- 
sonal presence of Jesus, especially in decisive moments, some judgment may he 
formed. But these are the only sure points on which we can lay hold. From 
such premises as these considerations afford, a healthy sensibility will con- 
clude, not the dazzling beauty of the outward appearance of Jesus, for that 
would be incongruous, but yet without doubt its majesty, dignity, grace, and, in 
general, comeliness. 



THE PERSON OF JESUS. 



229 



a natural transition, and bridge our way to those higher 
thoughts. 1 

When we endeavour to bring before our minds the image of 
the personality of Jesus in direct connection with the influences 
and works which originated in Him, three things strike us as 
peculiar. These three things may be summed up in the words 
— unlimited perfection, unapproachable dignity, and uncondi- 
tioned power of action. The character of Jesus is so con- 
stituted that we cannot take away one single trait from it, or 
add one to it, without at once being sensible that we have not 
only altered but disfigured it. 2 He includes in Himself, in fact, 
all perfection ; and along with the highest energy, and an inex- 
haustible fulness of life, there is a harmony so perfect that we 
are compelled to exclaim : — Here no improvement can be sug- 
gested by the loftiest idealizing, for the ideal itself has become 
real, and the life itself is stamped with the seal of perfec- 
tion. In its perfection we feel, moreover, that something 
attaches to the person of Jesus which our thoughts and words 
are incapable of grasping. Art has striven in vain to find an 
adequate expression for the image of Christ ; and so, to describe 
His spiritual nature and character in language, is a task which 
never has been, and never will be, accomplished to our complete 
satisfaction. We feel ever that He is possessed of a dignity 
which is unapproachable by man, of a fulness which the more 
we draw from it, the greater do its treasures appear. This is 
perceived not only by separate individuals, but by humanity as 
a whole. The higher and truer the inner life of an individual 
becomes, the more clearly does he discern and realize the image 

1 Compare especially in this connection the Essay by Stapfer previously 
alluded to, which was translated into French and published by Vinet under 
the title, Melanges Philos., etc., par Stapfer, Paris, 1844, t. ii., pp. 464-514. 
Among the more recent works, compare Dandiran, Stir la Divinite du Carac- 
tere Moral de Jesus- Christ. Geneve, 1850. 

2 See Stapfer's Essay, p. 495 ff. 



230 



INFERENCES IN RESPECT OF 



of Jesus ; and at every new step in the development of humanity 
the form of the Nazarene is illuminated by a fuller light. 1 At 
the same time, there is a distinct consciousness that it is not the 
image of Christ which increases by means of us, but that we. 
by living more deeply into it, grow in our capacity of understand- 
ing it. And however nearly we may approximate towards Him. 
we always feel that He towers above us, at a height to which 
no man will ever be able fully to rise — that there is a distance 
between Him and us which none can traverse. This eminence 
of Jesus is further evidenced by the unbounded power of influenc- 
ing men which He manifests. The image of the serene and 
holy One of Golgotha sinks to the very depths of our heart, and 
presents itself before the soul, — sometimes as a conscience warn- 
ing us of sin and evil, at other times, like a word of consolation 
coming directly from our compassionate God. And whilst its 
influence is thus felt in our own inmost life, it is no less percept- 
ible in the ordinary course of the history of mankind. The traces 
there are alike notorious and indelible, and the whole development 
of humanity, especially in its highest aspects, would be inexplic- 
able apart from the recognition of the presence of such a power. 
We can conceive it to be possible that all the great men of his- 
tory should pass into utter oblivion, but we must hold it to be 
impossible that the memory of this image should depart, because 
it has become part and parcel of the inmost and truest life of 
humanity. 

Nothing like this can be affirmed of the image of any other 
man. The capacity and perfection of all others are conjoined 
with limitation and sinfulness : eminence in every other instance 
is explicable on human grounds, and can be represented in 

1 Compare Stapfer, pp. 467 and 493. Stapfer very beautifully adds a third to 
the two elements of sublimity in the person of Jesus noted by Kant: to the 
Heaven of Stars above, and the moral law within us, the perfection of the moral 
without us.— P. 494, Obs. 1. 



THE PERSON OF JESUS. 



231 



human forms : all other influence on humanity, even that which 
deserves to be called world-wide, has its limits, and we should 
consider well before we ventured on claiming for it a direct and 
decisive action on the inmost life and highest welfare of all men. 
The only exception to these remarks is Jesus, the sinlessly Holy 
One. 

Such was the holy perfection of His life, that we must attri- 
bute to Him absolute moral majesty : and this separates Him 
from, and constitutes Him superior to, all other men. By such 
an attribution, moreover, we are driven to assume the presence 
of that which surpasses human nature, not only in its ordinary 
condition, but in any condition whatsoever. In contrast to the 
imperfection of all others, the absolute moral perfection of Jesus 
must necessarily be regarded not as the work of man, but as 
the work of God. 1 Immeasurable greatness and dignity in a 
person point to the infiniteness of the spirit by which it is ani- 
mated. The influences which go forth from Him, and which are 
interwoven with the inmost life of all mankind, would naturally 
induce the belief that a greater than human power was pre- 
sent. The boundless majesty which was felt to belong to Him 
stamped His person at once with the seal of divinity. Conse- 
quently, the perfect humanity of Jesus, compared with all that 
comes under our notice otherwise amongst men, leads to the 
recognition of His divinity. But this His divinity manifested 
itself more directly in other relations. In order to substantiate 
this assertion, we shall proceed now to unfold more distinctly 
the consequences which follow from the sinlessness of Jesus in 
respect of His Divine nature. 



1 See Stapfer, as above, p. 495. 



232 



INFERENCES IN RESPECT OF 



SECTION SECOND. 

INFERENCES IN RESPECT OF THE DIVINE NATURE OF JESUS. 

If we regard the person of Jesus with an unprejudiced mind, 
we shall find it marked most strongly by those very characteris- 
tics of truth, righteousness, holiness, and love, which constitute 
the essential nature of God. It is precisely that in us which is 
akin to God that we find brought clearly to our consciousness 
and quickened by the appearance of Jesus, and which is the 
cause of the attraction we feel towards Him. His personality 
is so constituted that, as we attentively regard it, our thoughts 
unavoidably ascend to God. We are utterly unable to under- 
stand or account for it otherwise. It must be confessed that, 
if there does exist a man from God, a man in whom we may see 
God, so far as this is possible, in human form, we have him be- 
fore us in the person of Jesus. It is therefore in itself quite 
natural that, in order to comprehend the peculiar nature of this 
man, we should have recourse to the hypothesis of the presence 
of a Divine element in Him. The reasons which establish this 
conclusion are of various importance, and are drawn from dif- 
ferent quarters. 

We have previously shown that the moral harmony, which is a 
distinguishing characteristic of the character and career of Jesus, 
has its final and real foundation in the unity of the principle from 
which all the activity of His life flowed. This principle was 
perfect acquiescence in the Divine Will, perfect devotion to God 
arising from a holy love to Him, which, by its very nature, was 
at the same time holy love to mankind. Perfect love to God 



THE PERSON OF JESUS. 



233 



necessarily implies full and living fellowship with Him, conse- 
quently also His active presence. Yea more, God really dwells 
in the being who loves Him thus. If the relation to God is a true 
one, if it is really a relation of life, it cannot be grounded 
merely on the elevation of man to God, but must rest also on a 
self-communication of God to man. Neither is sufficient without 
the other. Out of this springs that mysterious union of man 
with God which is the goal of all living piety, and which must 
be confessed to have been fully realized where we have cause to 
acknowledge the presence of entire love to God. If we grant, 
then, that Jesus did perfectly love God, (and His life in all its 
manifestations will not permit us to doubt this,) we must allow also 
that complete presence of God in His inner being which neces- 
sarily follows from the nature of the relationship in question. 

What has now been said, is evidently, in the first instance, 
only of a general nature and application. The same might be 
affirmed in regard to any truly pious man ; and up to this point 
Jesus would differ from others, only as possessing in the highest 
degree or in perfection, what was shared by all. There is, not- 
withstanding, that grand peculiarity in the person of Jesus which 
we have now before us, which had its source in the holy per- 
fection of His life, His sinlessness. Others may be found who 
are truly pious, and in their piety truly moral, and who there- 
fore stand in living fellowship with God ; but we do not meet 
with one who is sinless, — one whose own consciousness tes- 
tifies with absolute certainty to his sinlessness, and who has 
caused himself to be decidedly and widely known as such, 
— however far we may search, however carefully we may scan 
the boundless field which is spread before us in the history 
of the known communities of men. Now an explanation is re- 
quired of this absolutely unparalleled phenomenon : 1 and the en- 

1 Pelagianism denies that Jesus was an utter exception in the moral point of 
view. It is therefore driven to maintain that it is possible for other men to be 



234 



INFERENCES IN RESPECT OF 



deavour to explain it results in a conviction, that Jesus stood in 
a relation to God, which, like the effects produced by it, must 
have been of an entirely exceptional and specific kind. 

We have contemplated sinlessness as an attribute of the human 
nature of Jesus, and have ventured to maintain that it is possible 
to conceive of a human development characterized by perfect 
purity, on the ground that neither human nature considered 
simply in itself, nor the idea of development, necessarily and in- 
trinsically involve any element of sin. We do not now give up 
the position thus taken. We feel ourselves now, however, under 
the necessity of examining carefully the other side of the matter. 
The question suggests itself at this point : — If human nature, 
simply as such, does not involve in itself sin, how has it come to 
pass that experience only furnishes one example of perfect free- 
dom from sin ? Why have not persons risen up amongst men, 

sinless. If it was possible for Jesus in His human nature to remain sinless, it 
must also be possible for others, inasmuch as, according to the Pelagian doc- 
trine, all men enter life with their moral powers in perfect integrity. Even if 
Christ were the only example of sinless perfection hitherto seen, there is no 
reason why there may not arise another like Him in the course of time. 
This particular view is connected with the entire Pelagian conception of 
Christianity, in which the idea of a deliverer is left quite in the background, 
and example and doctrine alone are considered to be essential. Along with 
Pelagianism, Nestorianism has been reproached with holding the same view ; 
this was so, at all events, in the West, where it was supposed to be connected 
with Pelagianism. It was argued, that if the Divine and human nature are dis- 
tinct, and holiness and sinlessness are regarded as the privilege of the human 
nature thus separated from the Divine, it follows that other men may attain 
the same moral elevation without special communion with God. Compare 
Gieseler's Ecclesiastical History, Pt. i., § 86, specially the Observ., p. 447. This 
was, however, an inference from his doctrine, which Nestorius would never 
have conceded, for he did not in reality maintain such a separation of the 
Divine and human, and the presence of such a complete moral power in human 
nature in its present condition, as that deduction presupposes. It is a remark- 
able fact, that a renowned teacher of the Ancient Church, the Father of 
Orthodoxy, Athanasius, seems, although from an utterly different point of view, 
to assume the sinlessness of other human individuals besides Jesus. He says not 



THE PERSON OF JESUS. 



235 



from time to time, who could lay claim to the same superiority, 
and compel others to acknowledge the justice of their pretensions ? 
This cannot be a mere accident. The only rational ground of 
the fact is, that sinlessness, although not unattainable by human 
nature, according to its Divine original constitution, is, notwith- 
standing, quite beyond the reach of man, in his present condition 
— beyond his reach, because the dominion which sin has gained 
over the entire human race, has rendered it impossible that by 
his own unaided power he should keep himself free from corrup- 
tion. But if man's own strength is not sufficient for the realiza- 
tion of sinlessness, it can only be effected by a power which is 
exalted above the sphere where sin prevails, and which, notwith- 
standing, enters into that sphere without contracting defilement : 
and this is precisely the Divine power. Consequently, when we 
meet with a man who has actually proved himself sinless in his 

Only generally, l| fJ&v ovtc %v xkxik' ov'bi yocp oudl vvv \v ro7s ocyUts iffr'tv, old 

oXcjs xar olvtuv &*eLp%tt ocOtti — Contra Gentes ab init. t. i., p. 2. edit. Colon — but 
also, developing the thought with greater speciality, he observes further, that 
the character of the Divine image, of the Divine Sonship in Christ, cannot con- 
sist merely in moral unity with God, because in that case other spiritual beings 
also, and especially men, might be designated sons of God : hence the peculia- 
rity of Christ must rest rather on His oneness of nature with God. In the 
sense of moral unity with God, he adds, patriarchs and prophets, apostles and 
martyrs, and even Christians now living, might be called sons of God, for they 
resemble God, and are compassionate like their Father in heaven ; they are 
imitators of the apostle Paul, as he imitated Christ. Contra Arianos, Orat. iv. 
t. i., p. 455, and especially pp. 462, 463, Edit. Colon. Still we cannot with per- 
fect certainty conclude from these expressions that Athanasius really distinctly 
held the view that other individuals were sinless besides Jesus. In the first 
passage, it is to be remarked that the word jcocx/oc is too general and indefinite. 
In the other passages Athanasius avails himself of the thought of a repeatedly 
occurring moral perfection, only to strengthen another doctrinal line of 
argument ; and it may reasonably be doubted whether he had considered the 
thought itself in its whole compass, and had developed its strict meaning. 
Schweizer, Dignitat des ReUgionstifters, Abth. i., p. 563, examines and illus- 
trates the sense in which we may speak of a distinction in degree, as well as in 
kind, in respect of Christ. 



236 



INFERENCES IN RESPECT OP 



conduct, we fairly judge that a Divine energy, in the truest and 
fullest sense, has been active within him. 

But this point must now be more fully elucidated. 1 If all 
men are sinners, and, with the exception of the Holy One of the 
Gospel, not even one is sinless, it is a plain proof, that a prin- 
ciple of sin is implanted in human nature, not indeed by original 
constitution, but, certainly in its present state, that sin, although 
not the true, is still the second nature of man, that it penetrates 
and rules the whole race. The principle of sin being in such a 
manner ingrafted in human nature in the condition in which ex- 
perience presents it to us, only one supposition can render intel- 
ligible the existence of a sinless man ; namely, that the chain 
of sin has been broken, and that, in consequence, a personality 
has arisen in the midst of the sinful race, whose nature is tho- 
roughly whole and sound, to which have been given powers per- 
fectly pure, and amply sufficient for the realization of the higher 
life. But this is only possible as the result of a Divine creation. 
Such a person could not be the product of a race subjected to 
sin. In this aspect, He, in whom the possibility of being sinless 
has become a reality, may be designated a totally new man, the 
second Adam. But this second Adam, with whose humanity 
begins a new career, although like the first as respects the sound- 
ness and integrity of the higher powers of life, stands in an 
entirely different position towards the world. The first man was 
put in a world where as yet sin was not, and he had only to 
decide for obedience or disobedience to the plain Divine command 
which had been given him. The second Adam was born as a 
child into a world which was already under the dominion of 
sin, and, through all the stages of the development of His life, 
was exposed to its influence. In the course of such a develop- 

1 We continue here in the path which we marked out in the Introduction, 
The examination from the dogmatical point of view gives the same result : 
naturally, however, from a different and opposite side. See Liebner's Dogmatik 
aus dem Christolog. Princip dargestettt, B. i., pp. 291-352. 



THE PEKSON OF JESUS, 



237 



mentj independently of any natural bias in a man, sin comes 
upon him from all sides : it takes possession of him when 
he is as yet in an unconscious, or only half-conscious state ; 
and when he awakens up to full consciousness, it is already 
in the field, and has gained a power with which he has to 
struggle not only outwardly but inwardly. Thus the death- 
blow is given to perfect sinlessness : hence the impossibility 
of conceiving of a development, actually free from sin, being 
accomplished in a natural way under existing circumstances. 
But if, as we have found in Jesus, such a development 
has, notwithstanding all influences to the contrary, been brought 
to pass, we ought not to feel any hesitation in assuming the 
presence of something over and above, and in union with, the 
integrity of constitution originally given. In Him whose de- 
velopment was thus sinless, there must have been an infallible 
sureness enabling Him during its whole course, and even at those 
stages of it when He was not as yet awakened to full conscious- 
ness, to reject everything impure, untrue, and sinful, and to ap- 
propriate for His inner life only the pure, true, and good, from 
that which the surrounding world presented to Him. We might 
be disposed to represent this merely as the result of a Divine care 
operating from without. We should, however, be thus repre- 
senting a relation of life of a peculiarly inward character with an 
outwardness which is utterly inappropriate to it : and, in point of 
fact, it would be equivalent to saying that sin was constantly on 
the point of rising to power within Him, and was only repressed, 
by Divine influence exerted from without. Our only reasonable 
course, then, is to conceive it as the result of a principle which acted 
from within. And indeed only such a principle could have worked 
with the required infallible certainty, and have separated and re- 
jected the sinful as something alien and hostile to His own na- 
ture. It must therefore be conceded, that a Divine principle 
conditioned the original integrity of Jesus, and was a constituent 



238 



INFERENCES IN RESPECT OF 



element of His personality, 1 and that it grew and progressed in 
perfect symmetry and in harmony with the human element ; and 
that, consequently, so far from hindering, it really promoted the 
natural development of the latter, and secured its perfect purity 
and orderliness. Clearly, however, we cannot understand by this 
Divine principle merely something akin or bearing a resemblance 
to God, such as is in every man : for sin can and actually does co- 
exist therewith in every man. We must therefore conceive it as 
the Divine in its uncorrupted and true essence. In this way we 
are led from the sinless Son of Man to the Son of God, and the 
recognition of the pure humanity of Jesus ends in the conviction 
of His true divinity. 

Summing up all together, we may "say then — Jesus was sinless 
as a man, for the idea of sinlessness is only applicable to human 
nature ; not, however, in the general sense of the term, man — not, 
in short, as a " mere man," but as the man, in whom the humanity 
was on the one hand endowed with extraordinary powers, and 
on the other hand was pervaded, animated, and energized by a 
Divine principle. In a word, He was sinless, because He was the 
second Adam, and the God-man. 2 Only in virtue of the former 
condition was a development in any sense, and therefore a sinless 
development, at all possible to Him : only in virtue of the second 
could He accomplish it in face of a world full of evil, and which 
on all hands enticed Him to sin. Thus, although His sinless holi- 
ness was a quality of the human nature of Jesus, it had its proper 
roots in His character and essence as God-man. From His sin- 

1 The second Adam is as such, according to the Apostle Paul's designation, 
o KCftos eg ov^avov, 1 Corinthians xv. 47. 

2 This must not, however, be understood in an Apollinarian sense, as if 
anything were withdrawn from the perfection of the humanity of Christ. We 
must be quite in earnest in regard to the human nature of Jesus : specially 
must we hold fast the reality of His human moral development. See Dorners 
Entwickelungsgeschichte der Lehre v. d. Person Christi, 2 Ausg. i., p. 985 ; and 
Liebner's Christolog, Dogmatik, i., pp. 371-373. 



THE PEESON OF JESUS. 



239 



lessness, therefore, we may equally deduce the pure and perfect 
humanity, and the true divinity of His person : and inasmuch as 
we can only conceive of both as in complete union and interpene- 
tration, we deduce further that He is God-man. 

As respects this aspect also, the fullest confirmation is fur- 
nished by the facts of the history of Jesus. This confirmation 
consists not merely in that which is recorded of Him, but 
also in His own utterances. Here we refer to the whole com- 
pass of the testimony which Jesus gave of Himself, in which 
He characterized His relation to the Father as one of an entirely 
peculiar order, and in which He is presented to us as the Son of 
God in a specific sense, as He who was with the Father 
before the foundation of the world, and who, even now that He 
had come into the world, was still perfectly one with the Father, 
At this point our attention is specially drawn to His words— 
He that seeth Me seeth My Father also (John xiv. 9.) They were 
very clearly meant to suggest to us that the indwelling of God 
may be inferred from His whole life and conduct. For if the 
Father could really be seen in Him, all He was, and said, and 
did, and, in particular, the holiness of His life, must give rise to 
a direct and certain conviction of the active presence of that 
which is not merely human, but, in the fullest sense, Divine* 
Jesus Himself too, who was alike free from sin and free from 
error, bore testimony to the same thing, and consequently, from 
this point of view we are reduced to choose between two alter- 
natives — either to acknowledge the Divine humanity of Jesus 
along with His sinlessness, or to reject Him as sinless in refusing 
to recognize Him as God-man. 

We have no hesitation in deciding for the first alternative. 
Most weighty evidence for the justice of this course is furnished 
by the entire manner in which Jesus manifested His character 
and powers : which manner, as depicted in the Gospels, is in per- 
fect harmony with the estimate we have formed of His person. 



240 



INFERENCES IN RESPECT OF 



In reference to this matter we shall notice particularly only two 
characteristic points— the way in which He discharged the 
duties of a Teacher, and in which He wrought His miracles. 

As a Teacher, Jesus was fully as eminent as the unparalleled 
greatness and dignity of His person would have led and neces- 
sitated us to expect. His teaching was not like that of one who 
had worked out and carefully put together a system of thought 
in His own mind, and who then brings it before others to be con- 
sidered and weighed. He taught as one who was in authority 
(Matthew vii. 29), with the certain consciousness that He was in 
possession of the truth, and with the full conviction that He 
could meet with no contradiction : all which must be regarded 
as boundless and intolerable presumption and arrogance, did 
there not underlie it a direct and infallible intuition of that which 
is eternally true, if He had not a perfect right to say of Himself, 
We speak that which we do know, and testify that we have seen} 
The exaltedness of His spirit manifested itself also in the inimit- 
able form of His discourses. Here there is not a trace of any- 
thing which had been gained by study, and yet all is in the 
purest sense and in the highest degree perfect. Exuberant fulness 
and unfathomable depth of meaning, were combined with perfect 
simplicity and intelligibleness of form ; strength and loveliness, 
a world-comprehensive breadth and a most intuitional directness, 
the most exalted ideality and the most lively imagery, were 
united and blended in a way which has never been equalled. He 
was at once the profoundest and the most popular teacher the 
world has ever seen. His words say just what they were meant 
to say, with a most marked brevity, and yet they always hint at 
something deeper: they ring in our inner being like a voice 

i John iii. 11, with which connect especially, Matthew xi. 17, All things are 
delivered to Me of My Father ; and no man knoweth the Son but the Father ; 
neither knoweth any man the Father save the Son, and he to whomsoever the Son 
will reveal Him. 



THE PEKSON OF JESUS. 



241 



from a higher world. All the words of Jesus impress us as 
being words of eternal life (John vi. 68.) They have the appear- 
ance of being the product of au inner life of the highest order 
and intensity, and as therefore fitted to be a perpetual and all- 
powerful means of awakening new life in others. They at the 
same time are words which will outlive all human utterances, 
which are of eternal significance and validity. Both these 
things, however, the subhmity of His consciousness and the 
unparalleled character of His discourses, are but the natural 
expression of His exalted personality. 1 The character of His 
discourses is not something distinct from His person : in them 
He simply expressed and embodied Himself. Only He could 
have spoken in such a way : and He could not have spoken 
otherwise. From any other lips, not a little both of the 
substance and style of His discourses would reasonably give 
offence : as coming from Him, everythiug is alike noble and 
thoroughly natural. And as the form and contents of His 
teachings were entirely congruous to each other, so were 
both the natural and necessary expression of the person of the 
speaker. 

There is precisely the same correspondence between the person 
of Jesus and the mode in which He performed His miracles. At 
an earlier stage of our inquiry we directed attention to the diffi- 
culty of proving the Divine mission of Jesus from His miracles : 
especially to the difficulty arising from the consideration that a 
miracle derives its full significance from the person of Him by 
whom it is wrought. It is another thing, however, when he who 
is reported to have performed miracles is recognized as the sin- 
less One. Then, miracles are seen to be only a natural outflow of 
that which is already contained in the personality : they are of 

1 There are some excellent thoughts on this point in the Reden uber die 
Zuhunft der Evangel. Kirche, pp. 214-226. Especially p. 220, where the connec- 
tion with sinlessness is pointed out. 

Q 



242 



INFERENCES IN RESPECT OF 



the same significance in respect of the natural powers, as sinless- 
ness is in respect of the moral powers. To recognize Jesus as 
sinlessly holy, and yet to deny the miraculous element in His 
career, would be self-contradictory. On the contrary, if such an 
element were wanting, we should feel that there was a deficiency. 
Sinlessness itself involves the miraculous, in principle. It is a 
new commencement in the midst of a sinful race, which can only 
be explained by a Divine causality : and, as has been justly re- 
marked, 1 a perfectly sinless man is no whit less miraculous a 
phenomenon in the moral world, than a man raised from the dead 
is in the natural world. The fundamental miracle of Chris- 
tianity, the resurrection of Jesus, is closely connected with the 
fact of His sinlessness : for by reason of the connection between 
death and sin, death cannot have the same significance for 
one who is perfectly holy, as it necessarily has for the sinner. 2 
Sinless holiness in a person presupposes a freedom and power of 
will, a purity and fulness of life, and at the same time a com- 
munion with God and a thorough penetration by the powers of 
Divine life, on the ground of which we should be led to expect 
that an influence would be exerted on his own physical nature, 
on that of other men, and on the surrounding world in general, 
such as could never be looked for where sin has enslaved the 
spirit and will, and checks the appropriation of the powers of Divine 
life. 3 

As the more minute discussion of the points just now touched 
upon belongs to other departments of theological science, specially 

1 Orelli, in his work on the conflict of Rationalism with Supernaturalism, 
p. 26. 

2 See Doedes, Dissert, de J esu invitam reditu, Utrecht, 1841, p. 192; and 
Reichs, die Auferstehung des Herrn als Heilsthatsache y Darmstadt, 1845, specially 
pp. 208-270. 

3 For more extended remarks on this point, see my letter to Strauss on 
the person and miracles of Christ in my work, Historisch oder My this ch ? p. 
135 ff. 



THE PERSON OF JESUS. 



243 



to dogmatics, we shall not enter further upon them here, but turn 
our attention to another side of the subject. A personality, 
such as we have before us in Jesus, sinlessly holy, and therefore 
both Divine and human, cannot in the nature of things exist 
merely for itself, have its sole purpose in itself, but must have 
a significance for the entire human race. This we shall now 
illustrate. 



244 



INFERENCES IN RESPECT OF 



CHAPTEE II. 

INFERENCES IN RESPECT OF THE RELATION OF JESUS TO 
HUMANITY. 

When we speak of the relation of Jesus to humanity, we, of course, 
primarily and mainly refer to its moral and religious aspect, for 
the fundamental significance of His person is a moral and religious 
one. 

We started with the principle that religion is not an abstract 
system of doctrines, laws, and usages, but a relation of the life, of 
person to person. This presupposed, it is plain that a true and 
perfect religion can only exist where the relation of God to man 
and of man to God is established in its entire purity, and with 
all the fulness of life which it should possess : — in a word, only 
where God communicates Himself wholly to man, and man 
surrenders himself wholly to God. When a relationship of this 
nature presents itself before us as realized, we have every reason 
to acknowledge that the religious life has attained final, definitive 
perfection, that the true religion has been founded. The appear- 
ance of a sinless person is a main token that such a religion has 
been set up. We say, the appearance of a personality, because 
a perfect religion can only be realized in a personal form ; and of 
a sinless personality, because with sin everything is removed which 
separated man from God, and the consequence is an union with 
God which marks a height of religious life such as can never be 
transcended. 

Even regarded thus generally, the realization of the absolute 
religion connects itself with and follows on the appearance of a 
perfectly holy personality : but supposing humanity to be subject 



THE RELATION OF JESUS TO HUMANITY. 245 

to sin, the necessity of this is seen to exist in a much higher 
degree. In such a case the essence and aim of religion cannot 
be simply described as living communion with God ; they are 
really the re-establishment of this living communion, reunion with 
God. And in this connection it is evident that, as in sin there 
is a destroying and dividing power, so in holiness, when per- 
sonally realized, there must be a restoring and uniting power. 
Sin, by its very nature, makes it impossible that perfect religion 
should exist. Sin darkens our knowledge of God and His 
will, destroys living communion with Him, prevents any true 
union even among men, and extinguishes our hope of eternal life. 
Where sin holds sway, the healthful and energetic development 
of faith, hope, and love, which are the fundamental elements of 
true religion, is impossible : and that objective basis on which all 
piety rests, can never be laid by those who are in a state of sin. 
But a sinless man, who in his sinlessness is united with God, can 
lay the foundation of the reunion of humanity with God, for he 
does away with the state of sin. It is moreover certain that he 
will do it — as certain as that in virtue of his uninterrupted one- 
ness with God, and the energy of his personality grounded therein, 
he is possessed of all the powers requisite to the restoration of 
mankind. In this sense the sinless Jesus is not merely a founder 
of religion amongst others, but the Founder of religion, of the 
true and absolute religion. Hence a significance attaches to Him 
which is not transitory but eternal, not confined to His own nation, 
but universal and human. 

Such is the relation of the sinless Jesus to humanity, and the 
consciousness thereof lives in Christianity. It is, however, in- 
sufficient to describe this position occupied by Jesus only in 
a general way : we must exhibit it in its connection with the 
main aspects of moral and religious life. Among the actual 
conditions on which it is possible for the religious life to be 
perfected are— Revelation of the nature and will of God (know- 



246 INFERENCES IN RESPECT OF 

ledge of the method of salvation) ; the establishment of the true 
relation between the holy God and sinful man (atonement and 
redemption) ; restoration of the true divinely-appointed fellow- 
ship amongst men themselves (the founding of the kingdom 
of God) ; and the assurance of permanent and triumphant glory 
to this society and its living members (pledge of eternal life). All 
these conditions were fulfilled by the sinless and holy Jesus. As 
the sinless One, He is the personal revelation of God and His 
will, the Mediator between God and sinful humanity, the Pounder 
of true human society, and the pledge of eternal life. We shall 
now proceed to consider Him in all these aspects. 



SECTION FIRST. 

THE SINLESS JESUS AS THE PERSONAL REVELATION OF THE NATURE 
AND WILL OF GOD. 

The idea of revelation primarily and essentially belongs to the 
sphere of religion. Revelation, as such, has nothing to do with 
questions of natural science, of history, of speculation, but with 
the relation of man to God : nor does it pretend directly to be 
a standard for the civil and political life of men. Its foremost 
aim being then to disclose the nature of God, and thus to lay 
the foundation of fellowship with God, it cannot be merely a 
compendium of religious propositions, — in a word, it cannot be 
propagated merely from understanding to understanding as a 
matter of reflection. Inasmuch as God Himself is the fulness 
of holy and creative life, inasmuch as He is spirit and love, 
consequently, a person, that which represents His nature, that 
which is the organ of revelation, must in like manner be spirit, 
life, and love, — its life must be in the form of personality, and, 
so far as the revelation is intended for men, in the form of a 



THE RELATION OF JESUS TO HUMANITY. 247 

human personality. At the same time, it is clear that if the end 
of the revelation is not merely knowledge of Divine things, but 
life in God, and a relationship to Him which shall sanctify 
and glorify our whole existence, it can only be attained through 
the medium of a personality whose own life presents a picture 
of full communion with, and of holy enjoyment of, God. The 
idea of truth, which is coincident with the idea of revelation, is 
thus materially widened. Instead of being merely truth of know- 
ledge, it is truth of life. But such truth can only be expressed 
in personal life, and therefore can only find therein the point 
from which, as from a source, it may be creatively diffused and 
communicated. From a personality, which expresses the nature 
of God more fully than ever it was expressed before, in an 
absolutely perfect manner, as from a centre, the religious life of 
humanity is restored and renovated. That is the essence of 
revelation, and therefore we are right in saying, that the more per- 
sonal it is, — the more decidedly it expresses itself, not merely in 
the form of religious doctrine or legislation, but in the form of 
personal life, — the more perfect is it : and that revelation which is 
the consummation of all others, will be wholly presented in the 
form of a holy personality which comprehends in itself the nature 
and will of God. 

Applying this to Jesus, we find in His sinlessness a guarantee 
that in Him the consummating revelation of God is given to us. 1 
This is true, in the first instance, in respect of the knowledge of 
Divine things. For although revelation is not merely, or indeed 
in the highest aspect, a system of knowledge, it has undoubtedly 
a side on which it is knowledge : and we know well that Jesus 
actually did teach, and in His teaching made new disclosures as 

1 See in this connection various essays in the Groningen magazine, Waarheid 
in Liefde, especially those by Hofstede de Groot and Van Oordt, 1837, 1 — 1838, 
2, p. 227 — 1839, 4, pp. 731 and 752. Compare also my work, On the Nature 
of Christianity. 



248 



INFERENCES IN RESPECT OF 



to God and His relation to the world, and that He attached 
decided importance to a correct knowledge of God. 1 In this 
connection also, the sinlessness of Jesus has important results. 
It furnishes a pledge of the truth of that which was taught b;y 
Him ; it shows that He was justified in saying : — I speak not oj 
myself : my doctrine is not mine, but His who sent me (John vii, 6, 
17, 49, 50). 2 For not only is a sinless man intrinsically the 
worthiest instrument of a Divine revelation, but in virtue of that 
connection between the moral and intellectual to which we have 
previously drawn attention, sinlessness of itself implies and in- 
volves the purity and accuracy of the knowledge of religious 
truth. Infallibility in this sphere is but the reverse side of sin- 
lessness : it is its necessary corelative in regard to things theo- 
retical. But we may not confine ourselves here to the domain of 
knowledge and of doctrine, for where a full revelation of the 
Divine nature is in question this is quite a secondary thing, 
and only a part of the revelation. The totality of personal 
life can alone embody and express that which is primary and 
fundamental, can alone exhibit the whole as a whole. And here 
again we may see still more clearly how a sinless and holy being, 
not only could be, but by his nature must be, the organ by which 
God is fully revealed. God, whose essential nature is holy love, 
can alone be seen where a spotless sanctity has been preserved 
in the midst of temptations, conflicts, and sufferings, and where 
the holy greatness thus evidenced has at the same time mani- 
fested itself unequivocally as self-surrendering and self-sacrificing 
love. And where such holiness and love have actually been 
displayed in a personal human form, God has been in very deed 

1 John xvii. 3. And this is life eternal, that they might know Thee the only true 
God, and Jesus Christ whom Thou hast sent. 

2 For exegetical remarks on the passages which relate to this point, consult 
Suskind's work entitled, In welchem Sinne Jesus die Gottlichkeit seiner Religions 
und Sittenlehre behauplet, Tubingen, 1802 ; and Schott in his Briefe uher Relig. 
und Offenbarungsglauben^ Jena, 1826, p. 115 ff. 



THE KELATION OF JESUS TO HUMANITY. 



249 



revealed. All this can be affirmed of Jesus. He was sinless, 
and He loved with an absolute and perfect love. That which 
we are compelled to conceive as the invisible nature of God, be- 
came manifest in Him : and that which did take visible shape in 
Him we cannot but regard as the essence of God. We should 
be justified in saying that He must be God, if there were no 
God : but that He existed is a direct proof that there is a God, 
and that His nature is love. Hence Jesus, as the sinless One, is 
the personal revelation of the Divine nature. 

But a revelation of God concerns itself not merely with His 
nature, but also with His will. In this aspect it is still more 
apparent how Jesus the sinless One was the personal revelation 
of God to humanity. Looking at the moral side, we find that 
two conditions absolutely require to be complied with, if sinners — 
and all men are sinners — are to become well-pleasing in the sight 
of God. In the first place, they must be brought to know their 
sin, and to repent of it in their inmost soul : and further, the 
good must be set before their minds in its whole compass by 
means of a living and powerful example. Both these things — 
self-abasing knowledge of sin, and quickening knowledge of 
good — are effected in an incomparably excellent way by the 
manifestation of holy life given us in Jesus ; and this manifesta- 
tion is offered as a moral revelation of God, because its true foun- 
dation is in Him. 

Without doubt even the moral law, both in its positive and 
in its unwritten form in the conscience, produced knowledge of 
sin and sorrow on account of it. But evidently mere knowledge 
of and sorrow for sin in themselves are not all. Everything 
depends on their purity and depth : and here it must at once 
be acknowledged that a concrete life will havfr quite a different 
effect from an abstract law. 1 The knowledge of sin may alw r ays 
be measured by the knowledge of good. The more complete 

1 Martensen's Dogmatih, § 109, p. 233. 



250 



INFERENCES IN RESPECT OF 



and certain the latter, the truer and deeper the former. Now 
it is unquestionable that no law is able to communicate so sure 
and full a knowledge of good, as the life of one who has 
exemplified holiness in all relations and circumstances. Con- 
science, when tenderly cherished and cultivated, does indeed 
speak with great certainty, but it is never infallible. It takes 
its tone in part from our own inward state ; it is itself en- 
tangled in that web of sin which is thrown around our whole 
being ; and, as a thousand instances prove, it may go astray, it 
may even fall into a state of most fearful blindness, if it is not 
guided and enlightened by an external standard clearly held 
before it. The positive law, being more fixed and definite, is, of 
course, surer than the law in the conscience, but both lack that 
living completeness which is necessary to giving true knowledge 
of the good. They stand above and outside of our life : the 
commands they issue are abstract and general. Even the law 
as we find it in the Old Testament does not present the standard 
of good in its greatest perfection, not in the whole depth of its 
free inwardness. These defects are all overcome and supplied 
in the holy and sinless life of Jesus. - There we have a sure 
standard. His life is conscience outwardly realized. We find 
there a perfection of good as to principle, and a carrying of it 
out in action, in all relations, which can never be surpassed. 
Consequently, in the presence of this exemplification of holy life, 
an entirely different knowledge of sin is awakened — a knowledge 
much purer, deeper, more certain and complete, than any which 
arises from a mere law, however strict and wide. That which 
thus holds true with respect to the knowledge of sin, is equally 
true as regards sorrow on its account. " Is it not natural 
that he who gazes on absolute righteousness and truth, realized 
in the living example of Jesus, who beholds there the transcript 
of human nature and the human will in their original purity, 
and who therefore comes to know the beauty and perfection, the 



THE RELATION OF JESUS TO HUMANITY. 251 

glory and excellence of the holy Divine will, should humble 
himself more deeply and truly, than the man who can merely 
oppose a stern commandment to himself and his inclinations V' 1 
In His realization of the good, Jesus always referred to God, 
not to the law. Hence it is that as we stand in His holy 
presence we become more truly conscious, than in any other 
circumstances, of that quality of sin, in virtue of which it is 
rebellion against God, unfaithfulness towards Him; and thus, 
too, of the deep guilt which sin involves. Inasmuch, however, 
as Jesus sacrificed His own pure life in the conflict with sin, 
the sinner may at the same time see in Him the love which 
went even to death for his sake : and this should awake a 
much more genuine and inward sorrow for sin than the mere 
thought of having transgressed the law. In this aspect, the 
life of Jesus had the effect of separating most distinctly good 
from evil, and did in the true sense discern and judge men. 
Through Him a direct judgment was executed on sin ; and the 
condemnation is shown to be Divine by its purity and holiness. 
In his person a living power for the awakening of the know- 
ledge of and sorrow for sin, was implanted in humanity, which, 
considered even in itself, cannot but be regarded as a constituent 
element of a Divine revelation. 

More important still, however, is the positive side. Not only 
was the whole strength of sin laid bare, man was made also 
to see and feel the whole purity and fulness of life possessed by 
the good : and how could he be brought to the determination of 
making goodness the substance and ;aim of His life unless he 
saw its beauty and loveliness ? It is not of course to be ques- 
tioned that a susceptibility for the ideal of moral perfection is 
implanted in man along with his moral capabilities : but pre- 
cisely at the moment when we feel that in this ideal there is 
nothing which contradicts and is foreign to true human nature, 
i Words of Nitzsch in the Deutsche Zeitschrift, 1852, No. 10, p. 81. 



252 



INFERENCES IN RESPECT OF 



that, on the contrary, it really belongs to our nature, the ques- 
tion presses itself most strongly upon us — Why is it that we do 
not universally find in mankind a belief in and examples of 
goodness ? Why is it that, even when it has found an adequate 
and fuR expression, it is only gradually and with much difficulty 
that it penetrates the souls of those who behold it ? The simple 
reason is, that man cannot possibly produce what does not pre- 
viously live in himself. The image of the perfect good could not live 
in him, because sin did not permit its free development. It slum- 
bered in him. It must have done so, or no power could ever have 
awakened it in his inner being, and it would always have worn 
the aspect of something strange and foreign to his nature. But 
it did not live in him : else would he have had a distinct and full 
consciousness of it. Proofs enough that such an ideal did not 
live in him, are furnished by history. The idea of justice, of a 
self-complacent virtue which prudently keeps the mean between 
the two extremes, the idea of accordance with the laws and with 
that which is commended by all reasonable men, 1 was the highest 
point to which educated reason rose before the appearance of 
Christ : and even this idea was more a fancy or notion of the 
schools than a truth of the life. On the contrary, the picture of 
one who is filled with holy love, of a love of the good for the 
sake of God, of a love which compassionates the souls of others, 
seeks and sacrifices itself for their salvation, was foreign even to 
the most cultivated reason : and not only must it have appeared 
foreign to reason, but even unnatural and overstrained. Such 
an ideal could only be introduced amongst men through the 
medium of facts, of an actual life. The life by which this is 
effected cannot be regarded as a mere product of humanity, an 

1 For references as to particulars, see Rothe's work on the Berechtigung der 
Sinnlichkeit nach Aristoteles, Studien und Kritiken, 1850, 2, p. 265 ff ; and 
Schaubach's das Verhaltniss der Moral des class. Alterthums zur Christlichen, 
likewise in the Studien und Kritiken, 1851, 1, p. 59 ff. 



THE RELATION OF JESUS TO HUMANITY. 253 

intensified form of human nature ; but because an entirely new 
element, even true holiness is there revealed, it must be viewed 
as the work of the Spirit from on high, as of the operation of 
God. It is, in fact, a communication of God to hanianity, 
and is as truly a revelation in connection with the department 
of morals, as what is usually so designated in connection with 
religion. 1 

This ideal has been set before us in the person of Jesus, in 
Him who was the sinless One, whose life had its roots in God, 
and therefore was not only perfectly righteous, but also mani- 
fested a love which proclaimed itself Divine by its holy ear- 
nestness and unbounded devotion. He is man as God would 
have Him be, and therefore is He also the full and living expres- 
sion of the Divine will to humanity. In Him, the Son full of grace 
and truth, has the Sun of Righteousness arisen ; in His light we 
see light. 

The presence of such a distinct, fixed, and elevated standard 
must unquestionably be of infinite value for the moral develop- 
ment of humanity. The significance of the matter becomes still 
greater when we consider the mode and circumstances in which 
it was accomplished. The ideals and examples of the good and 
noble, such as are to be found before the coming of Jesus, all 
wanted power actually to transform the depths of man's life — to 
transform humanity as a whole. The reason thereof was par- 
tially that they were not in reality the highest, but more because 
they were only products of thought — products of intellect in a 
higher state of cultivation than was commonly attainable. Even 

1 " Christology must no longer be merely a chapter in Dogmatics, but must 
take place also as a chapter in Ethics." So speaks Ackermann in a beautiful 
review of Harless's Christliche Ethih, in Reuter's Repertorium, 1852, 4, p. 39. 
"We may even speak still more strongly : not only must the Christology become 
one chapter, but the fundamental principle, of Ethics. Christ is as truly the 
principle of the moral, as of the religious revelation. Compare de Wette, 
Lehrbuch der Christlichen Sittenlehre. Berlin, 1858, § 3 and §§ 41-52. 




254 



INFERENCES IN RESPECT OF 



when, as under the Old Covenant, these examples came before 
men clothed with Divine authority, and in a shape which the 
common understanding might lay hold of, they only appear 
as requirement, not as fulfilment. It is otherwise in Jesus. 
In His case the ideal of perfect goodness is not merely set 
forth by a personality as a product of thought, but is realized 
in life. Hence arises the extreme value it has in relation to 
moral intuitions and knowledge, and its boundless influence on 
our moral volitions and acts. There is a further superiority also 
of this realization in Jesus, that it has both an ail-inclusive and 
an universally intelligible character. The image of goodness in 
Jesus, we say, is all-comprehensive. It exhibits before us that 
which is true and universal in human nature under the very 
conditions to which every man is subject, in the relations of 
individuality, of sex, of the family, and the nation. Every one 
therefore may find satisfaction here, however situated as to these 
conditions of life. He realized the ideal in all the essential 
relations of life, especially in those which are attended with most 
difficulty ; and has thus shown not only that, but how, good may 
be preserved intact and come off victorious in all circumstances. 
He exemplified it not only in single and prominent virtues,* — as it 
were in detail, — but in the entirety of life. He consequently 
stands before us as a true and universal example, — not as 
a model of which we are to copy the separate parts, but as a 
type, the true spirit of which we are to appropriate as a 
whole. Nor is it less a characteristic that it is intelligible. It 
is deep and rich enough to be an inexhaustible subject of in- 
quiry for the individual thinker and for all mankind : and it is 
drawn in features so grand, mighty, and directly manifest, that 
the simplest soul, yea, the mind of a child, can understand it, and 
even those who would resist are impressed by it. We may con- 
sequently affirm that the image of Christ is one universally bind- 
ing men to imitate it. In this connection the words of the 



THE RELATION OF JESUS TO HUMANITY. 255 

Apostle (Gal. iii. 28) find application — In Christ Jesus there is 
neither Jeiv nor Greek, bond nor free, male nor female. This 
example is destined alike for all, that all may make it their own : 
and all alike are destined for it, that it may live for ever in them. 
But that which thus stands above humanity, although it is at the 
same time truly human, which has not proceeded from and 
is notwithstanding destined ever to enter into humanity, bears a 
higher than human character, is stamped with the seal of a 
Divine revelation. 

SECTION SECOND. 

THE SINLESS JESUS AS THE MEDIATOR BETWEEN GOD AND 
SINFUL MAN. 

Although the revelation of the nature and will of God form an 
essential part of the scheme of salvation, yet it is evident that by 
it alone man cannot be saved. The relation of man to God is 
not merely of an intellectual character ; but it is a relation of 
person to person, and embraces the whole life. For the question 
here concerns the position which the creature occupies with refer- 
ence to his Creator, in whom the springs of his whole nature lie. 
Hence nothing will suffice but perfect communion of life and of 
love. But this communion is opposed by sin, whose very nature 
is antagonism to God : and sin, which, as well as the guilt which 
it implies and the consequences which flow from it, is a real 
power in human life, cannot be done away with in any merely 
intellectual way. In order to break its might and destroy it, 
there must be opposed to it another equally real but higher 
power. But this power cannot come from man, it must come 
from God. For it is only God who can forgive men their sins 
and take away their guilt ; from God alone can the scheme of 



256 



INFERENCES IN RESPECT OF 



reconciliation go forth ; God alone can, by the actual communi- 
cation of His grace, set up a new power in the soul which shall 
be mightier than sin and all its consequences. And yet, since it 
is for men that the reconciliation is designed, it is only by a cor- 
responding human medium that it can be consummated. More- 
over this human mediator must be capable of imparting to the 
soul a principle of life and of goodness in the place of the prin- 
ciple of sin, which is now subjugated. This is the work of resto- 
ration, and it is accomplished by the sinless Jesus. 

If we recognize in the sinless Jesus the holy Son of God, — one 
with the Father, it will follow that His work is to be regarded 
as the work of the Divine holiness and love, of God Himself, in a 
human form. We should then see in all that He was, did, and 
suffered, a revelation of the Divine holiness and love, not merely 
typical and symbolical, but real and actual : in other words, He 
would be an actual communication of Divine grace. That this 
was so, Jesus Himself firmly believed ; it was in this way that His 
personal manifestation, His doing and His suffering, acted from 
the very outset upon the minds of the susceptible among His 
hearers. He Himself, with an assurance such as could spring 
only from the consciousness of a Divine mission and of full com- 
munion with God, called to Him all the Weary and heavy-laden ; 
bestowed at once pardon upon the conscience-stricken, and not 
only Promised, but from His own in-dwelling power immediately 
imparted, peace to their souls. And finally, after He had in 
His whole life manifested a love which in its holy purity we 
must recognize as indeed Divine, He went freely and with full 
consciousness to encounter the severest sufferings, assured that 
the blood He was to shed was for the remission of the sins of 
many, and that His death would be to the human race the be- 
ginning of an eternal salvation. And accordingly, when His 
manifestation was completed, the experience of the faithful con- 
cerning His work and His sufferings was this : they felt His 



THE RELATION OF JESUS TO HUMANITY. 



257 



reconciling and redeeming efficacy, that He was the full commu- 
nication of Divine grace, the renewing power which was to de- 
liver them from sin, and to produce in them a new life, well- 
pleasing to God. But there is one particular event in the history 
of Jesus which is the consummation and as it were concentration 
of His whole life, when both His doing and His suffering reached 
their highest culmination,- — we mean His death. The apostles 
have accordingly recognized the death upon the cross to have 
been the one only true and eternal sacrifice of propitiation. His 
death they have regarded as comprising and exhibiting all that 
Christ was, as the all-sufficient medium of Divine giT.ce, as the 
Reconciler and Redeemer of men. But this view of the death of 
Christ as a reconciling sacrifice is most intimately connected with 
their conviction of His sinlessness. For while, on the other hand, 
this qualification forms the necessary condition under which alone 
the death of Christ can be so regarded, this sinless character of 
Christ is itself the reason why His sufferings and death are a 
sacrifice at all, and, more particularly, the only real and eternally 
efficacious sacrifice. We cannot therefore omit to present here 
a brief exhibition of the truth of the doctrine of the sacrifice of 
Jesus. In so doing, we shall more particularly endeavour to 
point out how inseparable is the connection of this truth with the 
personality of Jesus, viewed as sinless, as holy, as one with God. 1 
It is not necessary that we should enter upon a full discussion 
of the idea of sacrifice in general, and it may suffice to confine 
our attention to the sacrifice of atonement. And here we may 
set out from the general principle of the atonement, viz., that it 
is the giving up of the pure, innocent, and unpolluted, in the 

1 Many excellent things upon the point which we are now to consider may 
be found in the Essays of Schoberlein : Uber die Christliche Versohnungslehre> 
Stud. u. Krit. 1845, 2 ; and Uber das Verhaltniss der personlichen Gemein- 
schaft mit Christo zur Erleuchtung, Rechfertigung, und Heiligung, ditto, 
1847, 1. 



258 



INFERENCES IN RESPECT OF 



place of the sinful, guilty, and vile, in order to bring about the 
deliverance of the latter. The atonement has for its object to 
restore that relation of man to God which sin had disturbed, and 
to reconcile the sinner to God. It is therefore indispensable to 
it, that there should be a knowledge of sin on the one hand, and 
of the holiness of God on the other, as well as of the antagonism 
between them ; and that there should be, in consequence, a long- 
ing for pardon and grace. Some heathen religions come some- 
what near to this idea of an atonement. But the conception 
could not be fully apprehended by any religion save the Jewish ; 
for it is only there that we find a definite apprehension of the 
holiness of God, and of the penal character of sin, as opposed to 
the Divine law. In the Old Testament religion, sacrifice had a 
twofold object : on the one hand, it sought to deepen in the mind 
of him who offered it the feeling of sin and guilt, and to give a 
strong expression to that feeling ; and again, it was to form a 
medium by which the sinner might receive the assurance of 
Divine grace, and a means of restoration to a right footing in 
the sight of God. In both, the fundamental idea is that of sub- 
stitution. The sacrifice of the animal shadowed forth the self- 
sacrifice of him who offered it ; while the death which the animal 
suffered represented the death which his sin deserved. Then, as 
the consequence of his penitence, and by virtue of the promise 
which was attached to the sacrificial offering, he received the 
assurance that God accepted the ransom, and now looked upon 
the sinner in grace. 

Now this service of sacrifices, although it unquestionably 
arose out of a deep religious want, although in itself highly 
significant and full of meaning, and well adapted to that parti- 
cular stage of religious development, had nevertheless something 
unsatisfactory about it, and could never thoroughly accomplish 
that real abolition of sin and implantation of holiness which the 
nature of the case required All was shadow, there was no 



THE EELATION OF JESUS TO HUMANITY. 259 

reality: a representation there was, but no actual moral trans- 
action. In general, sin was acknowledged to be sinful and de- 
serving of punishment, but the wide range of its influence was 
unknown. Divine grace was prefigured, but not actually communi- 
cated. The relation in which the offerer of the sacrifice stood to 
the animal he sacrificed was a voluntary, not a necessary relation: 
the rite was to him an outward event, the sacrifice was not re- 
ceived into his very soul. As the sacrifice offered was an animal 
which had indeed, as a thing consecrated to God, a sacred 
character ascribed to it, but which of course could not be really 
holy, there could go forth from it no sanctifying power. Hence, 
although these sacrifices might for a time appease the conscience 
and calm the sense of guilt, they could not take away sin, and 
establish in its place a true fellowship with God and a new life : 
hence arose the necessity for their frequent repetition. Now 
what could not thus be accomplished, viz., the restoration of a 
life which should be inwardly reconciled to God, and really free 
from sin, was performed by Christ. But it was not merely by 
the abolition of the sacrificial worship that Christ accomplished 
this. It was by presenting in a real and concrete form, in Himself, 
what in sacrifices had been striven after, but never attained. The 
perfect self-surrender of Him the All-holy, for sinful men, which 
was the only real and sanctifying sacrifice, whose efficacy should 
last for ever, came in the place of those merely typical sacrifices 
which were now to cease, having found their realization and ful- 
filment in that great sacrifice. 

Now an indispensable condition of this self-sacrifice of Christ 
was, that He should be perfectly sinless and pure. This offering 
up of Jesus is distinguished from all the anterior Jewish sacri- 
fices chiefly in this, that it was not a representation and fore- 
shadowing, but a real moral transaction : it was a free action, of 
a purely ethical character. Jesus, in whose person the sacrifice 
and the priest are one, offered Himself, as the Epistle to the 



260 



INFERENCES IN RESPECT OF 



Hebrews expresses it, through the eternal Spirit unto God. 1 And 
in this offering of Himself, He preserved the most perfect liberty 
of action. For, however we may regard His death to have been 
brought about by circumstances, still we must acknowledge, that 
it was by a free decision of His own will that He took it upon 
Him. ISTow this act can have been thus freely determined upon, 
only by a will which was altogether pure and holy, and in no- 
wise under the thraldom of sin : and we must regard this 
sublime resolve as the culminating action of a life which was itself 
from first to last a perfect sacrifice. But in this free self-deter- 
mination to death there must be one important element, if it is to 
be viewed as a purely moral action, and not as a fanatical court- 
ing of martyrdom. It must be formed with a full consciousness 
of the necessity of such a death in order to carry out the plan of 
salvation, and that it is an indispensable condition of the redemp- 
tion of man, and the establishment of a kingdom of God upon 
earth. This consciousness could be possessed only by One who, 
in virtue of His holiness and His oneness with God, had a clear 
insight into the whole purpose of God in salvation. Again, Jesus 
could desire to offer Himself as a sacrifice for sinners, only if He 
felt that in Him was no sin, only if He was conscious that He 
was pure and stainless : for only on this supposition could His 
sacrifice be well-pleasing to God. It was in truth an indispens- 
able condition of the sacrifice that the victim was immaculate, 
for only such an one could be worthy of God. The physical im- 
maculateness of the animal which the Jews sacrificed, rises in 
this personal self-sacrifice of Jesus into moral stainlessness. That 
He who sought to give Himself as a sacrifice to free the world 
from sin should have been conscious of being Himself a sinner, 
or felt Himself to be in any one respect unclean before God, 
would have been not merely a contradiction, it would have been 
a gross impiety : if, on the other hand, He did not make upon all 

1 Hebrews ix. 14. 



THE RELATION OF JESUS TO HUMANITY. 261 

the impression that He was perfectly sinless, then one might sup- 
pose that it was for His own sin, for His own guilt, that He suf- 
fered. Only in the case of One who was perfectly free from sin 
can we feel confident that the suffering which He underwent, 
however much it may have conduced to His Divine perfecting, 
was endured not on account of His own guilt, but for the guilt of 
others. " Such an High Priest," says the Apostle, "became us, 
who is holy, harmless, undefiled, separate from sinners, and made 
higher than the heavens. Who needeth not daily, as those high 
priests, to offer up sacrifice first for His own sins, and then for 
the people's ; for this He did once when He offered up Himself." 
(Hebrews vii. 26, 27.) 

The principal thing, however, is, that the sinless holiness of 
Jesus was a most essential cause of the efficacy of His self-sacri- 
fice. From His holiness, His sacrifice of Himself received its 
validity, so as to be the realization of all that which former sacri- 
fices had striven to attain : that is, it was the means of impart- 
ing a full knowledge of sin, and formed an actual communication 
of Divine grace. Thus, and thus only, could His sacrifice be a sub- 
stitution in the truest and deepest sense ; thus only was it a real 
destroying of sin, and a real implanting in its place of a new life 
of sanctification. 

In the first place, it is in the contemplation of the self-immol- 
ation of the Holy One, that we come to understand what sin is, 
in its absolute antagonism to holiness. For, first, we have both 
presented to us here in the strongest light : here is manifested to 
us a holy love which unconditionally, unreservedly gives itself 
away in sacrifice, and here too sin is shown us in all its malignity 
and power. As we thus see both in such strong contrast, the 
true nature of each becomes clearer to us, and even the dullest 
understanding can appreciate to some extent the vast difference 
between them. But further, we cannot fail to observe, that the 
sin which is here brought before us is not sin in its isolated 



262 



INFERENCES IN RESPECT OF 



phenomena, but that it is the dominant sin of the race, that sin 
which operates as a universal power in humanity, and of which 
we may trace the workings in ourselves. The Holy One dies, 
" not in a conflict with sin in its special manifestations, but with 
sin itself," 1 in order to break its power at one blow: hence 
both the might of sin and the intensity of its opposition to God 
are presented to us here in most distinct and definite outlines. 
There is, as has already been shown, no more effectual means of 
awakening the heart to a knowledge of sin, and a true sorrow for 
sin, than the life-picture of the Holy One, as it is presented to us 
in the Gospel : but, above all, it is from the contemplation of the 
Crucified offering Himself for the sins of the world that this 
benign influence proceeds ; and assuredly no one can deny that 
the consciousness of sin is called forth in a manner infinitely 
more clear and more intense by the sacrifice of the sinless Christ, 
than it ever was by former sacrifices. These contained, at most, 
a general monition against sin ; they did not hold up to the soul 
the mirror of a love freely giving itself up for the sinner to suffer- 
ing and to death. 

But here too the positive side is much stronger. All that the 
sacrifices of the earlier dispensation could accomplish was to 
typify and symbolize the Divine grace : but the sacrifice of 
Jesus actually communicates that grace. For if the sinless One 
is so united to God that His love is to us a real manifestation 
of the love of God Himself, and that we must recognize Him 
* to be an impersonation of the Divine love, all this must be most 
forcibly expressed in that highest act of His life, His free surren- 
der of Himself to death from love to man. In this act we see 
two things : we see One who has established His claim to be 
regarded as the Son of God, freely giving Himself up to die ; 
and we see God not sparing His own Son, that He may give 
Him up to death for the salvation of man. And yet these two 
1 De Wette, Wesen des Christlichen Glaubens, § 57, S. 297. 



THE RELATION OF JESUS TO HUMANITY. 



263 



things are one : for there is no need here to think of a special 
mysterious mediation between the Father and the Son. Rather 
is it true, that in the sacrificial death of the Holy One we see 
immediately the reconciled and gracious God. That death was 
not merely a revelation of the eternal love of God, it was that 
love in its truest form, that love whose very nature is, that it is 
a sin-pardoning, a saving, a helping love. Nor does this love 
offer itself at the expense of the holiness of God ; on the contrary, 
it does so in a manner which alone truly satisfies the claims of 
that holiness : for the sacrifice of the sinless One possesses, in a 
very different way from the earlier sacrifices, a vicarious signi- 
ficance and a sanctifying efficacy. 1 

The Divine love, which is itself absolutely holt/, cannot impart 
itself to the sinner as such, but only as containing in it a pledge 
of sanctification. And yet, on the other hand, it is necessary 
that the sinner should possess an assurance of the Divine love, if 
he is to have that delight in goodness, and that power to per- 
form it, which lies at the very root of holiness. Here then there 
is a mediation requisite, and here it is that the holy and sinless 
One comes in, and is seen living, suffering, and dying, as the 
sinner's Substitute : by His unconditional surrender of Himself to 
God and to mankind He renders the sinner's renewal and restora- 
tion a possible thing. In Him, God contemplates humanity as 
pure, as in harmony with the Divine will, and such as He can take 
delight in. Through Him, God can communicate His grace to 
those who are incorporated with Christ, and have received out 
of His fulness the powers of a new life. Then again, to men Jesus 
is the Being in whom the love of God is beheld incarnate, and is 
received into their hearts. This is rendered possible by the 
nature of the fellowship and communion which is perfectly 
realized in Christ, and which occupies so important a place in 

1 Compare on this whole subject Rothe's Ethik, Abschnitt : Der Erloser und 
sein Erlosungswerk (Band 2). 



264 



INFERENCES IN RESPECT OF 



His whole work. For as, on the one hand, Christ is so absolutely 
one with God that His whole manifestation, especially His death, 
must be regarded as an actual living manifestation of God Him- 
self, as a God of love ; so, on the other hand, He becomes 
equally one with men, enters into the fullest life-fellowship with 
them ; gives Himself entirely to them, in His love ; lives, suffers, 
and dies, not for Himself, but for them ; not in order to procure 
some oue special benefit, but that He may purchase the salvation 
of the whole race. And in virtue of this self-devotion, which truly 
unites Him with humanity, He is no longer to be regarded as a 
separately-existing individual, but as the universal man, as com- 
prehending the whole of humanity in Himself, as its Substitute 
and Head. In this way, Christ being one with humanity, communi- 
cates to it everything which He Himself possesses. What belongs 
to the Head belongs also to the members. His doing and endur- 
ing, His actions and His sufferings, His death and resurrection, 
belong no more exclusively to Him, but have become the common 
possession of all those whose Substitute and Head He was. 
Theirs too is all the merit of His life and of His sacrifice, where- 
by He has won the favour of God and eternal blessedness. 

Doubtless this presupposes something on our side: we must 
enter into His fellowship, we must by faith lay hold of the sal- 
vation offered to us, and thereby become partakers of the 
reconciling power of His life and death. And here again we 
trace the difference that exists between the old sacrifices, and 
the sovereign and all-efficacious propitiation of Christ. The 
ante- Christian sacrifices remained without the offerers, and, al- 
though they doubtless made some impression upon their minds, 
they were still external to them, and were not inwardly and 
necessarily connected with them. The sacrifice of Christ r on the 
contrary, is from its very nature such, that it cannot remain 
without, as an external, strange, accidental circumstance, but 
must of necessity enter into the soul ; and he who appropriates 



THE RELATION OF JESUS TO HUMANITY. 



265 



that sacrifice and makes it his own must come into a living 
relation to it, and become truly one with it. Hence the great 
significance of the sacrifice which is accomplished by a personality 
of sinless holiness : the powerful creative life which dwells in Him 
is communicated also to those who feel a longing after deliver- 
ance from sin ; and, by means of their vital union with a being 
who is full of God, a power is implanted within, whereby not 
only the consciousness of guilt and sin is destroyed, but sin 
itself is overthrown in the soul, and the beginnings of a new life 
are established. The idea of substitution is indeed to be re- 
jected as something false and dead, if what is understood by it be 
a merely external and formal, and thus also a capricious, trans- 
ference of merit from the guiltless to the guilty : but seen in this 
light it is something living and true. The connection between 
Christ and His believing followers is expressed by St Paul in 
words of profound significance, as " being in Christ." So close 
is the living union between the Head and the members, that 
they form part of one whole. His fellowship with Christ, from 
which the Spirit and the life of Christ pass into his soul, makes 
the believer a partaker in all that Christ Himself is. In this 
fellowship he learns to know God as a God of grace. In this 
fellowship, even when it exists only in its early dawnings, he does 
not stand alone in the sight of God, but is in His sight as one 
who has been grafted into Christ, and is united by faith with 
Him. On this account God can in His love impart to him His 
grace, even although sin still exists within him, because in his 
oneness with the sinless Christ the dominion of sin is destroyed, 
its power is broken, and a hope and a pledge of its ultimate total 
overthrow are bestowed. 

Hence, when it is said that in Christ God is gracious to the 
sinner, the phrase is not to be understood to mean that there is 
in this any arbitrary or capricious dealing on the part of God. 
The reason why God is gracious to the sinner in Christ, rests 



266 



THE RELATION OF JESUS TO HUMANITY. 



upon an inner and necessary connection between His grace and 
the sinner's being in Christ. For, whenever a sinner becomes 
united to Christ, He sees in him (however imperfect he may still 
be) the beginnings of a holy character, and of a perfect deliver- 
ance from sin. 1 Now if this importance attaches to the sacrifice 
of Christ, it is apparent how His sacrifice must be regarded as 
the only sacrifice, offered once for all. 2 It possesses entirely and 
for ever the power to communicate the Divine grace and to im- 
part the new life. And therefore it is not possible objectively to 
renew His sacrifice : the only way in which it can be offered 
again is a subjective one ; that is, by every believer seeking to 
follow the example of Jesus, and, as himself a priest to God, to 
offer to God a spiritual sacrifice in Christ. 

In this sense it is, that we recognize in the sinless One the only 
true Mediator between God and man. In Jesus we see Him in 
whom God is well-pleased with man, and turns to him in grace : 
Him in whom man may look on the unveiled glory of Divine 
Love, may zealously apprehend and appropriate that love, and 
thus be changed into the Divine likeness. But while He thus 
brings humanity to God, He does not the less draw men more 
closely together among themselves : and this is what we have to 
speak of now. 

1 Schleiermacher, der Christliche Glaube, ii. 145, § 104. 

2 " Who needeth not daily, as those high priests, to offer up sacrifice first for 
His own sins, and then for the people's : for this He did once, when He offered 
up Himself." " By His own blood He entered in once into the holy place, 
having obtained eternal redemption for us." " Once in the end of the world 
hath He appeared to put away sin by the sacrifice of Himself. As it is ap- 
pointed unto men once to die, and after that the judgment; so Christ was once 
offered to bear the sins of many ; and unto them that look for Him shall He ap- 
pear the second time without sin unto salvation." (Hebrews vii. 27, ix. 12, 26-28.) 



JESUS AS THE FOUNDER OF THE FELLOWSHIP OF MEN. 267 



CHAPTER III. 

THE HOLY JESUS AS THE FOUNDER OF THE TRUE 
FELLOWSHIP OF MEN. 

Br a true fellowship of men, we mean that fellowship to which 
man is by nature called. It is not of the associations which 
arise out of the different relations of life that we speak, but of 
that fellowship with one another into which men are brought in 
virtue of their being made in the image of God, and of their des- 
tination to an immortal existence. Now we maintain that such 
a fellowship could be established by no other than the sinless 
Jesus, and that it must of necessity be founded by Him, and was 
in fact so founded. 

It is true that in all human relationships, and in every sphere 
of human activity, men tend to associate together ; there is an 
interchange of benefits, a reciprocal giving and receiving; an 
acting and producing on the part of one, a being acted upon and 
a receiving on the part of the other ; there is a drawing together 
of congenial spirits, and an exclusion of unsuitable persons from 
the community. In this way associations are formed ; societies 
of art or of science ; civil, political, or national societies. But these 
associations, however great and important they may be, have 
their set bounds and limits : there is always, more or less, some- 
thing private and particular in the idea upon which they are 
founded. Societies of science or of art are designed solely for 
the competent and the educated ; the civil association has its 
narrow local bounds ; and the political and the national, though 
not so circumscribed, are still restricted within the particular 



268 THE HOLY JESUS AS THE FOUNDER OF 



party or nation. Now there is a task allotted to humanity which 
is the same for all its members, to whatever race or people, what- 
ever grade of education or of rank, they may belong : it is that 
of occupying a right position in reference to God, and in refer- 
ence to our fellow-men. This is that religious-moral life by 
which alone the image of God in man, which is the Divine idea 
of man, is brought to a perfect realization. Now a primary 
necessity of this religious-moral life is that element of fellowship 
and communion, because, isolated, it can either not exist at all, 
or exist only in a very obstructed form. Hence there arises in 
this province, as distinguished from all other provinces of human 
life, the necessity that a fellowship should exist of a nature such 
as should transcend all limitations, and embrace within it every- 
thing that is human. It must seek to bring all the members of 
the human family into the true relation to God, and the true re- 
lation to one another ; it must equalize all differences, and so make 
that idea of universality which is so essentially bound up with 
the idea of the image of God in humanity, into a real truth of 
life. This fellowship binds men together, in the deepest source 
of their nature, by the tie of a common descent from a common 
Father. And therefore is it fitted to become the true basis of 
all other fellowship : because it imparts the principle of all union. 
It operates in such a way that it does not permit the spirit 
which would otherwise disunite men, to effect a hostile separation 
among them. On the contrary, it brings so vividly before them 
the fact that they are destined for one another, that they are 
impelled to aid and supplement one another. For, from this 
point of view, humanity appears as a totality, as a whole, or- 
dained by God so to be ; whereof the different parts are designed 
to be members, and the different gifts and graces imparted, in 
order to advance the well-being of the whole, and by their diver- 
sity and their reciprocal action and re-action, to produce a living 
unity, a great spiritual world-harmony. 



THE TRUE FELLOWSHIP OF MEN. , 269 

Now this most perfect union and fellowship of men could not 
exist, so long as the noble elements in humanity were mixed with 
those which were more accidental and subordinate. But this is 
precisely what occurs wherever religion is not cultivated purely for 
its own sake, but is brought into so close a connection with other 
provinces of human thought and activity, that it can operate 
only through their medium, or in inseparable conjunction with 
them. This was the case in the ante-Christian world, and is still . 
the case among those nations which are beyond the pale of the 
Christian Church. In such circumstances we find that religion, 
being mixed up with a science of nature and speculation, is trans- 
formed into a system of sacred physics or metaphysics, and then 
usually degenerates into a priestly or a philosophical occult 
science. Or else it becomes a worship of the beautiful, and then, 
instead of ruling the life, it becomes a mere sensuous enjoyment. 
Generally however, we find religion in such cases brought into a 
substantial union with the political constitution of the country, 
and this combination presents itself in either of two forms : either 
the religious department is determined by the political, and then 
we have a state-religion ; or the political is ordered by the reli- 
gious, and then we have a religious state. 1 In all these manifes- 
tions of religion we find it, and morality with it, in close alliance 
and conjunction with something foreign to itself. Now, as reli- 
gion is great and general, being Divine, whereas all things besides 
are bounded and particular,— by union with those things external 
to itself, religion partakes of their limitation and particularity. 
But in so doing, it becomes in truth a source of schisms and divi- 
sions among men, instead of being a basis of union. The founda- 
tion of a true and universal fellowship among men could be had 
only when religion, which alone could effect it, was entirely 
kept within its own proper territory, and was unpolluted by the 
admixture of any foreign elements. Thus, and thus alone, could 

1 Lit. " religion- state," 



270 



THE HOLY JESUS AS THE FOUNDER OF 



the one point be found from which, Archimedes-like, it could work 
upon the whole circle of human life. Now this could be done 
truly by a Person, whose mission was to reveal humanity in its 
true relation both towards God and towards man ; only by one 
who was in full communion of life and of love with God and with 
men ; and by whom this mission was accomplished. Such a per- 
sonality we have in the sinless Jesus. He has revealed the life of 
God in the form of a man, He has revealed humanity in its Divine 
glorification : and, thus uniting together Godhead and manhood, 
He has become the point of union for the whole human race. 

Jesus had absolutely no other mission to accomplish but that 
of restoring the true relation between God and man, and giving 
a full expression to the Divine element in humanity. His charac- 
ter and His work are purely of a religious and moral nature. In 
Him and by Him, religion is entirely restricted within its own 
domain and established on an independent foundation. And from 
the position in which it has been established by Him, it may 
freely operate upon all the circle of life around it : may create art 
and science, penetrate the life of the people, and infuse a new 
spirit into legislation and politics. But it is far from seeking to 
set itself in the place of these things : on the contrary, it is entirely 
itself, and will be nothing else but itself. Most particularly did 
Christ distinguish between what was God's and what was Cassar's. 
His kingdom was not of this world. The kingdom whereof He was 
King was that of truth. In the spirit of a love which till then had 
never entered into the heart of man, He broke through all the re- 
strictions of the family, race, and nation (without at the same time 
in anywise violating the Divine order), and embraced in His bound- 
less sympathy everything that called itself human. And even 
thereby was He, and He alone, able to be the Founder of a true 
kingdom of God, which is confined by no limits whether of time 
or space, and the Founder of a religion which invites all men to 
unity. And as we give the name of Church only to that religious 



THE TKUE FELLOWSHIP OF MEN. 



271 



community which, unmixed with any extraneous elements, seeks 
to be nothing but a religious community, but at the same time 
as such claims to be perfectly independent in her own sphere, we 
must own, moreover, that Christ is pre-eminently the Founder of 
a church. With this consciousness it was that He said : " Come 
unto Me, all ye that are weary and heavy-laden," (Matt. xi. 28.) 
In this consciousness He desires that all may in Him and with 
Him be one, even as He is in and with the Father, and affirms 
that by their unity the world would know that God had sent Him, 
(John xvii. 21.) With this consciousness He already sees the 
whole human race as forming but one flock, under Him the one 
Shepherd, (John x. 16.) 

It lies in the very nature of the case, that it could only be in a 
holy personality who was in union with God that this fellowship 
could come to exist at all ; as well as that in Him it must so have 
existed. 

In Him alone could it exist. Any living organic fellowship 
must of necessity have some central point of union. Where the 
union is to be one of personal spirits, the centre of union cannot 
be something abstract or ideal, but must of necessity be personal. 
Now it is requisite that the person ality which is to form this 
centre should be one which itself is a full and perfect expression 
of the spirit which is to live in the society formed, and which is 
a fresh and inexhaustible source of that spirit. And as the union 
here contemplated must be of the most intimate character, if it 
is to be really organic, must be such a union as that of the head 
with the members, the Head must here be an individual of the 
highest moral purity. For the members can give themselves 
up entirely, not to any being who is, like themselves, tainted with 
sin, but only to a holy being, by whose spirit and life they may 
become penetrated, and whose will they may make their law. 
And this is what we find in Christ. In His life everything neces- 
sary to form a sure and lasting foundation for the noblest society 



272 



THE HOLY JESUS AS THE FOUNDER OF 



of men is perfectly represented. And His spirit and life are a 
fountain from which all may draw without ever exhausting its 
ample supplies. And His holy purity makes Him a worthy ob- 
ject of the unconditional self-surrender of all men. 

But further, this society of men must find a real existence in 
Christ. Men who are sinful and bounded in themselves cannot, 
as we have seen, form of themselves any stable and lasting 
association. They must find the true point of union in a Being 
who is higher than they ; and perfect union can be found only in 
the highest of all beings. For He in whom they are to be 
made one must raise them above their own narrow identity, and 
in joining them to Himself, unite them in living fellowship to 
one another. If this be so, it will follow, on the other hand, 
that whenever that highest One shall in very deed come with 
power to their spirits, this union will be the inevitable result of 
their apprehension of Him. For there is in the True, Divine, 
and Holy, when once vividly presented to view in actual life, a 
certain magnetic power which attracts souls from their isolation, 
and unites them by an unseen but indissoluble bond. This life- 
magnet, this attractive influence, has made itself felt among men 
in the person of that Divine and sinless One, who offered Himself 
in holy love a sacrifice for them. And by Him must every one 
who is susceptible to the spell of His benign and gracious influ- 
ences be drawn out of the narrow limits of self. But it is not 
only out of their own restricted selves that those who can feel 
the power of the Christ are attracted by means of that faith 
which He has called forth within them. It is into His life that 
they are drawn. They are made one with Him, and even thus 
are they made one among themselves. And this kind of union is 
at once the most perfect and the most lasting : for it is accom- 
plished in the Highest ; through it man is raised above himself, 
and that selfishness which otherwise prevents all living fellow- 
ship is in its very essence destroyed. 



THE TRUE FELLOWSHIP OF MEN. 273 

It is true that all this applies immediately to those who have 
actually laid hold of Christ by faith. But then these are the 
salt of the earth, the leaven which is destined gradually to 
leaven the mass. They are to prepare the way for a union 
among men, which, beginning with a small circle, soon extends 
on every side, until at length it compasses the whole human 
family. The moving spring of this fellowship is Love, — and it 
is that love which the Holy One has brought into the world,— 
love pitying, love seeking, love redeeming. Seen in the light of 
this love, every one needing our aid, even should he be the 
meanest and most despised of men, is to us an image of Him 
who said, " Whatsoever ye do to one of the least of these My 
brethren, ye do it unto Me." (Matth. xxv. 40.) What this 
love sees in the sinner is not merely a guilty or rejected man, or 
in the ignorant, merely one whose state concerns him not ; in 
both alike it sees an object of redeeming grace, destined to 
become a child of God, and which it must seek to bring back to 
the family of God. This compassionate love has not a human 
but a Divine source, as it flows in boundless fulness from Christ. 
It therefore contains in it a guarantee that the kingdom of God 
will come forth victorious from all its conflicts, and will in the 
end succeed in effecting a union of the whole human race. 

Thus we see that there dwells in the person of the holy Christ 
the power of uniting men in one ; and this power is one which 
must necessarily come into operation. By it all those who are 
His by faith are united together in a holy fellowship, and are im- 
pelled to seek to enter into a living communion with all men, that 
all may be sharers in His love. And this end of a union of all 
men in one can be attained, only by their being all brought into 
the fellowship of the kingdom of God, which is the only true and 
universal fellowship. And where else but in Christ do we find 
such an union of the human race ? Where else do we even find 
anything resembling this f The very idea of forming a society 

s 



274 



THE HOLY JESUS. 



which should embrace the whole human family, never entered the 
mind of the greatest sages, or lawgivers, or founders of empires, 
in ancient or modern times. 1 And if the thought had occurred 
to any of them, how could they have ever realized it? The 
Holy One of God, and He alone, could do this, because in Him 
alone was the true uniting power, and because the kingdom of 
God was contained in Him, and had only to develope itself from 
Him. Regarded in this light, Christ is presented to us as the 
central figure in the world's history. He is this, because the 
whole spiritual life which existed in the race before His appear- 
ance was one continual aspiration and longing after Him, while 
He has become the author of all the spiritual life which has been 
found among men since His coming. But we regard Him as the 
central figure in the world's history more especially because He 
is the true point of union for the race ; because He is the life of 
humanity, the pulsing heart and the quickening spirit which 
lives in man ; because it is by means of this vital principle, which 
is Christ, that humanity is formed into an organic whole, into a 
body animated by the power of God, and consisting of many 
members. And it is a fact of very deep significance, that Christ 
makes it a ground of faith in His Divine mission, 2 that by union 
with Himself and with God He brings men into union among 
themselves ; because this implies, what is indeed most true, that 
only One who had come forth from God was able to accomplish 
a work like this, than which the human mind can conceive 
nothing more noble. 

1 This idea is enlarged upon by Reinhard in his celebrated work, " Uber den 
Plan welehen der Stifter der Christlichen Religion zura Besten der Menschen 
entwarf." 54 Aufl. von Heubner. Wittenberg, 1830. 

2 John xvii. 21. " That they all may be one ; as Thou, Father, art in Me, and 
I in Thee, that they may be one in Us : that the world may believe that Thou 
hast sent Me." 



THE PLEDGE OF ETERNAL LIFE. 



275 



SECTION FOURTH. 

THE SINLESS JESUS AS THE PLEDGE OF ETERNAL LIFE. 

There remains yet one other point to be established, in order 
to give a full view of the position which Jesus as the sinless One 
occupies in humanity. In the society which, as we have just 
seen, He has founded, every one who belongs to Him by a living 
faith possesses a firm conviction that he is not a transient and 
perishable member of that society, but that in Christ he is the 
possessor of a life derived from God, which is indestructible, 
which is eternal. And of this he has a pledge and guarantee in 
the sinless Personality of Jesus. 

Surely it may be said of this personality, if it be true of any 
other man whatever, that it is absolutely inconceivable that it 
ever could fall a prey to destruction through death. On the 
contrary, we feel persuaded that He must possess eternal life ; 
nay, that He is Himself so intimately associated with the idea of 
an endless existence, that we find that no words can more fitly ex- 
press His connection therewith than the words of the apostle: 
" He has brought life and immortality to light." (2 Tim. i. 10.) 

Even with regard to the work of moral beauty which Christ pre- 
sents to our contemplation in His human character, it is impossible 
for us to believe that it has come into being only to fall away, after 
a short existence, a prey to dissolution. We draw an argument 
for the immortality of the soul from the imperfection of this our 
present state, and our longing after perfection. Our ideas of ex- 
cellence so far transcend the realization, that we feel convinced 
there must be a future state where we shall attain the object of 
our desire. Thus in the fragmentary and unsatisfactory nature 
of this our mortal existence, we find an argument for a future 
state of perfection. Now we may invert this reasoning, and 



276 



THE HOLY JESUS AS THE PLEDGE 



argue thus : Because a perfect Being has existed, in whom the 
highest idea of perfection has been absolutely realized, it is much 
less to be conceived as possible, that a nature of such harmonious 
perfection should fall a prey to annihilation. If to this we add, 
that this Being, by virtue of his sinless purity, stood also in un- 
divided unity with God and was entirely penetrated with the 
Divine life, it will be seen that the case becomes far less conceiv- 
able, nay, it becomes absolutely impossible, because from its very 
nature the Divine is also the Everlasting. 

We cannot imagine a truly personal God of love who could 
create beings in His own image, and then, so soon as He had by 
the revelation of His Son given them a lively consciousness of 
their relation to Him, could by an irreversible decree consign 
them to death. Thus there is in the position occupied by a being 
who is filled with love to God, towards a God who is in truth 
personal love, a pledge of personal duration after death. But 
when that Being is one whose relation to God is such that He 
could say with truth, " I and the Father are One," we feel abso- 
lutely certain of His endless existence. Can we for a moment 
entertain the thought, that when the Crucified expired with the 
words, " Father, into Thy hands I commend My spirit," His soul 
was breathed out upon the idle winds of heaven ? Can the idea 
be reconciled with the impression which His whole life made? Is 
it consistent with the thought of a living God of love ? 

In truth Christ and annihilation are two ideas which it is im- 
possible for us to join together, which we feel necessarily exclude 
each other. Either Christ was a very different Being from Him 
who lived in the faith of the first ages of Christianity, (and on 
that supposition the whole of Christianity is an unaccountable 
phenomenon,) or, if there be truth in the original portrait of 
Christ, then He must have possessed life in Himself, must have 
been everlasting. 

And it is here worthy of special notice, that in Him eternal 



OF ETERNAL LIFE. 



277 



life is not revealed as a future thing, but as something actually 
present : it is not a mere hope, it is a real, present, assured pos- 
session. The whole being of Christ is borne up by the powers 
of eternity : His whole character is transfused with the heavenly. 
It is the full truth and living reality of a higher world that shines 
forth upon us from the face of Jesus. The triumph over death 
in His resurrection was not something extraordinary in His his- 
tory — something out of keeping with the rest of His life. No : 
it was rather regarded by Him as the crowning act of a life 
which had, from first to last, been a victory over death and 
revelation of eternity. 

Let us now endeavour to connect this with what was formerly 
said. Jesus is at once the highest point of elevation of the race 
and the central point of union : He is thus at once the Head and 
the Heart of the human race. This He was in life. How much 
more then after He had been made perfect by sufferings and 
death, and raised above all the limitations and restrictions of this 
earthly life, would He take up a position, exalted indeed far above 
everything human, but still most influential and important for 
the higher development of humanity ! Thence He would mani- 
fest Himself as the ever- active Head of the body : that is, the 
society of men which He had formed and evermore maintains. 

But all this leads also to certain very important conclusions 
with reference to those who are by faith joined, in living union, 
to that Person. If it be true that eternal life belonged essentially 
to Christ in His inmost nature, and if faith be indeed the appro- 
priation of His life, the forming of Christ anew in the believing 
soul, — then it must necessarily follow that they who enter into liv- 
ing fellowship with Him, become partakers of His eternal life. In 
this sense it is that He says : " I will that they whom Thou hast 
given Me be with Me where I am," (John xvii. 24.) It is a say- 
ing of deepest significance ; by which we are manifestly to under- 
stand that between Him and His chosen there is so intimate a 



278 



THE HOLY JESUS AS THE PLEDGE 



union, that He can as little be in His state of exaltation without 
them, as they can live without Him. If He is at once the eter- 
nally living One and the Head of His believing followers, He can 
never lose the members which He has made part of Himself. 

Against this it cannot be argued, that as the Head He is ever 
taking new members into union with Himself, while the old are 
allowed to die away. For it were absurd to conceive of a 
heavenly Head with only earthly members, or to think of an ever- 
lasting Head whose members should be ever changing and pass- 
ing away. It is impossible to entertain the idea of a living, per- 
sonal God, along with that of a number of human personalities by 
Him called into being, and by Him also doomed for ever to 
vanish into the void of nothingness. As little is the belief in a 
really living Christ reconcileable with ceaseless destruction and 
dissolution of His members. In the former case, we feel that if 
we are compelled to surrender our belief in personal existence 
after death, we must along with it renounce our faith in a per- 
sonal God, whose name is love ; and be content to accept the pan- 
theistic idea of a ceaselessly-changing universal life, as moving 
between birth and death. So likewise in the latter case. The 
eternally-living Christ must be transformed into one, who did 
once exist it is true, but whose influence has entirely passed 
away, (thus making Him to be an historical Christ only in a very 
restricted sense,) before it can be maintained that His followers 
too are destined to perish. And thus we are reduced to the fol- 
lowing alternative : Either we must say, that like believers, so 
Christ Himself falls a prey to annihilation ; or we must believe that 
as He lives and reigns, so they too live and reign with Him as their 
exalted Head. He has made them " partakers of the Divine 
nature" (2 Peter i. 4); He has stamped upon them the impress 
of His own life, and thereby made them sharers in His own eter- 
nity. How indeed could it be a Divine nature of which they are 
made partakers, if it is perishable and subject to death ? And 



OF ETERNAL LIFE. 



279 



how could Christ be Himself the truly living One, if the highest 
effects which have gone forth from Him in forming personal 
beings^ were destined to be swallowed up in nothingness % 

What is true of the individual members of Christ holds good 
also of His members viewed collectively, of the kingdom of God, 
and its manifestation in the Church, which is the body of Christ. 
From the very first, it was not as an isolated individual that 
Christ received each man into His fellowship, but as one who was 
also destined to form a member in His body. And this relation 
can never cease, but must ever become stronger and deeper, more 
real and true. As the life of the individual is perfected in a 
higher state of existence by his being made partaker in ever-in- 
creasing fulness of the life of Christ, even so, and in equal measure, 
must the life of the community of Christians be perfected, until 
the body of Christ is presented in perfect symmetry and beauty. 
But we can never imagine a moment when the body should be 
left without its Head, or the kingdom without its King, any 
more than we can conceive of the Head ever existing without 
His body, or the King without His kingdom. If the kingdom 
of Christ, in virtue of the creative power which dwells in its 
Founder, has in Him a sure pledge of its ultimate perfection, 
then it has also in Him the assurance of an endless duration : 
and we have no alternative but either to deny that Christ is the 
true King of a real kingdom, or to regard Him as the immortal, 
eternally-reigning King of His eternally-triumphant Church. 



280 



APPLICATION AND CONCLUSION. 



APPLICATION AND CONCLUSION. 

We have thus endeavoured to prove the position previously laid 
down : that the sinless and holy Jesus is the Divine and human 
Personality by whom God and His will have been revealed 
to men, and the true relation between the holy God and sinful 
man restored ; by whom the true fellowship of men has been 
established in the kingdom of God, to every member of which the 
sure promise is given of an eternal life of perfection and of blessed- 
ness. Such are the results arrived at, and they comprise the 
leading features of what the Gospel teaches us concerning Christ 
and His work. They constitute the essential parts of Christianity, 
and rest upon the same foundation as that upon which it rests, 
viz., the Person of its Divine Pounder, His self-testimony, His 
whole life-manifestation. But although the principal part of our 
work has thus been performed, we should not regard our task as 
completed were we to omit to make a practical application of the 
preceding to human life. 

For it must be evident to every one, that if the Person of 
Jesus really possesses those excellences which we have ascribed 
to it, it must necessarily be most significant, and decisive in the 
whole of human life, whether in the individual or in the race. 
For if the knowledge of the truth of God, if reconciliation with 
God, if the kingdom of God and life eternal, are only in Him 
and through Him, then is there in Him alone salvation in the 
highest and fullest sense, according to those words of Scripture : 
" There is none other name under heaven given among men 
whereby we must be saved." (Acts iv. 12.) At the same time, 
it cannot be looked upon as an unimportant circumstance, that 
this salvation does not come to us in the form of a doctrine or an 



APPLICATION AND CONCLUSION. 



281 



institution, but in the living form of a Personality. Nor is this 
to be regarded merely as a means of introducing the salvation 
into the world, as something fleeting and transitory : on the con- 
trary, the circumstance is of a most essential character, and one 
whose efficacy lasts for an unlimited period of duration. It was 
necessary that salvation should be presented to man in and by a 
person, because only a person could fulfil the task assigned; 
only in a person could truth be embodied in the form of a truth 
of life ; only a person could bring about reconciliation by the 
actual communication of Divine grace ; could establish the king- 
dom of God as its royal Head, and by a real victory over 
death impart to humanity the pledge and earnest of eternal 
life. Further, that renewing love which is the principle and 
the bond of union of the kingdom of God could appear incarnate 
only in a personal form. Nor must we fail to recognize its 
endless duration, for the relation thus established is of its very 
nature indissoluble and eternal : the Son of God is to all eter- 
nity the centre of truth and fount of grace, the King of the 
kingdom of God, the Prince of life ; and the love which unites 
His chosen with Him can never die, but can only increase to 
eternal ages. 1 This is manifestly the thought of Jesus Himself 
and of His disciples. For when He calls Himself, or is called by 
them, the Light, the Truth, the Resurrection and the Life ; 
when He says (John xiv. 6), " No man cometh unto the Father 
but by Me ;" and when His Apostle says : " Whosoever denieth 
the Son, the same hath not the Father," (1 John ii. 23) — these 
expressions are all unqualified ; nor have we any right so to limit 
their meaning as to make them have no immediate or necessary 
reference to the Person of Jesus, or as if they apply only to a 
certain limited period. On the contrary, salvation is wholly and 
indissolubly connected with the Person of Jesus : not indeed with 

1 Compare my Treatise on the Nature of Christianity and on Mysticism 
(Wesen des Christenthums und die Mystik, Studien u. Kritiken, 1852, S. 607-610). 



282 



APPLICATION AND CONCLUSION. 



that Person in itself and apart from His work, but assuredly with 
it in its whole life of words and actions, of doing and suffering, 
of humiliation and of exaltation : with the whole work and life- 
manifestation of Jesus. 1 

The central point of our religion is thus the Person of Jesus. 
That Person is not merely inseparable from Christianity, but, 
inasmuch as it comprehends within itself the whole of salvation in 
its living realization, it is the very essence of Christianity : and 
it is only because in the Christian Religion salvation is presented 
to us in the form of an actual personality that it is a perfect 
religion, a religion intended for the entire human race. And 
since objectively everything rests upon the Person of the Son of 
God, full of grace and truth, we may learn from this in what 
way subjectively Christianity operates in individuals and in the 
race. This it remains for us briefly to illustrate. 

Generally speaking, everything depends on our receiving Christ, 
and with Him the blessings of grace, of righteousness, truth, and 
life into our heart. He must live in us, as Himself salvation be- 
come personal, must grow up within us, and prove Himself in us 
as the creating power of a new life. But we cannot rest satis- 
fied with this general statement : we must examine the separate 
points of this process, and mark its course. 

It is manifest, in the first place, that the man who would come 
within the sphere of Christianity must take up a certain spiritual 
position in relation to the Person of Jesus. This is indeed ne- 
cessarily the case with every one to whom the knowledge of 
Jesus is conveyed : quite as much as it was with regard to those 
who immediately saw Him in the flesh. The revelation, in a 
human form, of the Divine love in its spotless holiness can never 
be viewed with feelings of indifference. Such a revelation must, by 
means of its dividing and testing power, either attract or repel. 
Those who are susceptible to the holy will be drawn towards it : 
1 Compare same work, pp. 599-602. 



APPLICATION AND CONCLUSION. 



283 



those who are sealed against these sacred influences will be driven 
from it. The one class will hasten to receive it into their own 
life : the other will shut themselves against it. In this respect 
everything turns upon the answer to the fundamental question, 
whether the soul is attracted or repelled; and here the stern 
word of Jesus comes in : " He that is not for Me is against Me." 
(Matt. xii. 30 and Luke xi. 23. 1 ) 

Manifestly it is not to the understanding of a man, exclusively 
or even principally, that this alternative is presented. The deci- 
sion of the intellect is not indeed excluded, but the thing of most 
importance is the answer of the heart, from which are the issues 
of life ; and here again the heart is viewed chiefly in its ethical 
relations, i.e., with reference to the wilh The question concerns 
the relation which man means to occupy with reference not to 
abstract truth, but to a Person ; and in that Person, not to any 
particular quality of His character, but to the whole of His life 
as a manifestation of the holy, as an actual communication of 
Divine grace. A personal relation is the only one a man can hold 
towards a person : and towards that Person who offers to us a 
salvation which aims at nothing less than a restoration of our 
whole nature, the only fitting position we can occupy is one in 
which our whole soul in its deepest feelings is engaged. 

Now the only worthy demeanour of a personal being towards 
One who has in Himself a Divine salvation which He has procured 
by His own free self-sacrifice, is implicit confidence and un- 
bounded love : a confidence whereby he surrenders himself en- 
tirely to Him ; a love whereby he receives Him into his soul, and 
the salvation which He brings. Now this confiding self-surren- 
der and appropriating love, combined in one great act of the will, 
we call Faith. Faith is the only organ which corresponds to this 
relation, for by faith we become partakers of Christ and His sal- 
vation. By it is effected that mutual interchange of communi- 
1 See on these passages Deutsche Zeitschrift, 1851, Nos. 3 and 4, S. 29 ff. 



284 



APPLICATION AND CONCLUSION. 



cation and appropriation, of giving and accepting, between 
Christ and those who stand in need of His salvation, by means of 
which Christ, on the one hand, taking upon Himself the nature of 
man, offers to mankind Himself and His salvation ; while, on the 
other hand, man, longing for salvation, gives himself up to 
Christ, and receives Him into his inmost life with all the bless- 
ings of His grace. Such a faith is personal in the best and 
highest sense. What indeed can be more personal than the 
self-denying trust and the appropriating love which are requisite 
here? Further, the whole person comes within its influence. 
For here it is not enough that Christ be acknowledged in 
thought, nor that what He claims be surrendered by the will, 
nor even that the love of the heart goes out to Him : no, the 
whole man must give itself entirely to Him, and take Him into 
itself. Nay, we must say, that it is really this faith that forms the 
new person, it is the creating principle of a new personal nature. 
For when Christ is implanted in the inmost heart of a man, and 
begins to develope and acquire a form there, that man receives the 
power of a new life, and for the first time there springs up within 
him the true personality : the new creature in the image of God. 

We are thus led to view a process of life which is unfolding 
itself within. For the very nature of faith forbids us to regard 
it as an isolated condition, existing separate from the rest of the 
life in which it finds a place : on the contrary, although of 
utmost importance, still it is but a link in a whole chain of life. 
Thus, to advert merely to the most important particulars, it has 
a necessary antecedent, and a no less indispensable result. It 
must be preceded by repentance, and followed by a new life, both 
limited indeed by the present sinful condition of humanity, and 
both the effect of the special creative might of that saving 
Person of Jesus from which faith itself took its rise. 

If human nature, when brought face to face with this personal 
manifestation of God, were pure and sinless, then faith might 



APPLICATION AND CONCLUSION. 



285 



exist in all its fulness and efficacy without the necessity of its 
being preceded by repentance : in that case it were nothing 
more than the immediate joyful apprehension of the Divine, in 
all its holiness and love. But when sin has once acquired a power 
in man, it is only by sincerely acknowledging his guilt and deeply 
deploring his sin, only by undergoing the cleansing process of an 
inward condemnation of that sin, that he can approach to the 
contemplation of things Divine. We have already seen that this 
inward self-condemnation is pronounced in a much more decided 
way when we consider the sinless One who was crucified for us, 
than when we act in obedience to the mandates of Law. But 
the humiliation which is requisite here, has in it a power to raise 
again the abased : in penitence is the germ of faith. For the 
cause of penitence is holy love seen in Jesus Christ ; and love 
possesses not only a power to condemn, it can also draw and 
allure : it throws the sinner in the dust indeed, but its influences 
stop not here ; for it lifts him up again by awaking in him — ■ 
and all the more, the deeper he feels his guilt — a confidence in 
God which makes the soul rise heavenward. Thus drawn, thus 
elevated with a holy confidence, the soul surrenders itself to 
Christ decisively and without reserve, it appropriates Him in all 
His saving power and makes Him its own ; and this is Faith. 

Faith is in its inmost nature a receptive faculty. It is rendered 
necessary by a want which must be supplied — the want of salva- 
tion, and this it receives. It does not present itself before God 
and Christ in the consciousness of possessing any merit of its 
own : it gives itself up with a deep feeling of its unworthiness in 
" poverty of spirit." It does not seek to create a salvation ; it 
is willing to receive it as the free gift of grace. But on the other 
hand, in receiving the salvation of Christ, it becomes immediately 
active and productive. For Christ the Holy One cannot be really 
taken into the soul without at once manifesting Himself there as 
a productive source of goodness, without becoming in the soul 



286 



APPLICATION AND CONCLUSION. 



the principle of a new life well-pleasing to God. He, who is per- 
fectly pure, must purify from sin ; He, who is absolutely free, 
creates true freedom where He is ; He, who is infinitely loving, 
pours into the heart the fulness of His love, and roots out the 
selfishness which He finds there. Where a faith like this exists, 
good works are not required ; because good works must necessa- 
rily grow out of a faith like this. " The question is not, whether 
or no good works are to be done ; for even before it is asked, 
good works have been done, and still are done." 1 

The new life is thus the necessary result of faith, — of faith, not 
as a mental quality of a general kind, but as a concrete reality, 
as a living appropriation of the holy Son of God, who is the Author 
and Finisher of faith, Divine love incarnate. We may thus sum 
up the whole in a single sentence, and say : As Christianity is 
based upon the sinless Person of Jesus objectively, so subjec- 
tively too does it rest upon this ; because repentance, faith, and 
the new life, yea, everything that makes a Christian what he is, 
is essentially produced by that sacred Personality. 

But that which makes the individual Christian must also be 
vital and omnipotent in the forming of the Christian community, 
that is, the Church. If the salvation of the individual be indis- 
solubly bound up with the Person of Christ, the salvation of the 
Church must be so too. The Church, as well as every one of her 
members, lives and grows only by fellowship with Christ. And 
from fellowship with Christ, which is the source, flows the com- 
munion of the members of Christ among themselves. It is not 
the members who form the relation in which they stand to the 
Head, but it is the Head who forms the relation of the members 
among one another. The doctrine of the Protestant Church, 
therefore, rightly makes the way lead, not from the Church 
to Christ, but from Christ to the Church. For although we may 
affirm with perfect truth, either that where Christ is there the true 
1 Luther, in that noble passage upon faith in the Pref. to his Ep. to the Romans. 



APPLICATION AND CONCLUSION. 



287 



Church must also be, or that where the true Church is Christ 
must also be, 1 — still the former statement expresses the primary 
and fundamental truth, and the latter affirmation can have no 
truth if the former be not true. Now, if the Church has been 
called into being by the Person of Christ, if she be the true 
Church only when and in proportion as she is in living fellowship 
with Him, then her growth and expansion, or in cases of apos- 
tasy her recovery and renewal, can be effected only by a return 
on her part to this foundation, other foundation than which can 
no man lay. The origin and the life of the Church are therefore 
due to that same creative power of the Personality of the holy 
Son of God by which individuals live ; and in the former as with 
the latter, everything will depend on this, that the way for His 
approach be made plain by purification and repentance, that He 
be received by a lively faith, and that His presence be manifested 
in a new and holy life in conformity with His own blessed image. 

We have now reached the close of our argument. A few 
earnest words to those who have. accompanied us thus far may 
here be permitted. We shall address a few remarks to those 
who are yet far from the Gospel of the Son of God and Re- 
deemer of the world, and also to those who confess that Gospel 
with the mouth and in the heart. 

Ye who are still strangers to the message of the Son full of 
grace and truth, if such there be among my readers, consider 
well what it is you spurn, when that message is brought to you 
and you yet shut yourselves against it. You cannot here with- 
draw to a neutral territory : you must of necessity come to a de- 
cision, whether it be for or against And could you decide against 

1 The well-known formula of Irenaeus (adv. hseres. iii. 24, 1) : Ubi ecclesia 
ibi et Spiritus Dei, ubi Spiritus Dei illic ecclesia et omnis gratia, are perfectly 
correct taken separately : only their arrangement is not strictly correct ; for 
Irenseus places first what should come last, the derived being put in the fore- 
ground, while the primary and essential are stated last. 



288 



APPLICATION AND CONCLUSION, 



Him who, like none besides, has proved Himself, by His own 
testimony and the testimony of history, to be the sinless and holy 
One ? If you would deny that He was pure and holy, you would 
destroy the highest and the noblest thing there is in the whole 
history of humanity : and you would only involve yourselves in 
inextricable difficulties in order to explain away the whole mani- 
festation of His life, and the effects which have gone forth from 
Him. But if you admit the fact of His holiness, you must go 
still farther ; for you must recognize in Him a personal revelation 
of God, you must own Him as the Reconciler, you must tender 
Him your homage as the King of the kingdom of God and the 
Prince of Life. And if you thus decide for Him, see that you do 
it in the right way : give yourselves up entirely to Him, for He 
will be satisfied with nothing less ; and take Him entirely to you, 
for so He gives Himself : for He is not destuied to be fashioned 
according to our thoughts and fancies, but we are destined to be 
transformed according to His glorious image. 

Ye who confess the name of the Son of God ! to you, and to the 
whole Church of which each in his own sphere you are living 
members, there is presented in this manifestation of the Holy 
One, the highest mission in life given you to accomplish. And 
this mission, simple indeed but most comprehensive, is nothing 
less than this : to labour that the Divine powers to save and to 
sanctify which are in Christ may ever become more and more 
efficacious in us and in other men ; to seek ever more perfectly 
to grow up into Him who is the Head ; and to let the light shine 
forth ever more brightly of the grace of Him who hath called 
you out of darkness into His marvellous light. When Christ 
shall thus rule in His Church and in the heart of all its members, 
then will Christianity indeed be, what its holy Pounder designed 
it should be, the salt of the earth and the light of the world, to 
the glory of Him to whom alone is glory due. 



SUPPLEMENT. 



THE DIFFERENT OPINIONS HELD REGARDING 
THE TEMPTATION. 



SUPPLEMENT, 



THE DIFFERENT OPINIONS HELD REGARDING 
THE TEMPTATION. 

The object of the brief notice given in the Treatise 1 of the 
History of the Temptation, was principally to point out the rela- 
tion between the fact of our Saviour being tempted and His 
sinlessness. We endeavoured to show what aspect this relation 
bears, as seen from the various points of view occupied by those 
who have discussed the two subjects, and with this purpose we 
referred even to those opinions which present the greatest diffi- 
culty. But what was there said would be insufficient and unsa- 
tisfactory without a further investigation of the whole subject. 
We subjoin, accordingly, a criticism of the various expositions 
of this passage, 2 and supply a fuller vindication of the view 
which, in our opinion, deserves the preference. 

Everywhere in the Bible the exposition of the details, and 
the view to be taken of the whole, reciprocally modify each 

1 See page 165-176. 

2 The most recent literature on the subject of the Temptation has been given 
above (page 165). More information may be found in Hase's Life of Jesus, 
and De Wette's Exegetical Hand-book. Specially rich in literary notices 
is a Treatise in the (Catholic) Tubinger Quartalschrift, 1828, 1 and 2. 



292 DIFFERENT VIEWS OF THE TEMPTATION, 



other, and this is especially the case with reference to the 
passage before us. But while, as is evident, the details can be 
fully understood only by a correct appreciation of the whole, 
there is a great danger of allowing one's-self to be influenced 
in fixing the meaning of the separate histories by a pre-deter- 
niined conclusion on the import of the whole narrative. That 
we may avoid this danger, and pursue the safest course, we shall 
first state what can with certainty be determined with regard 
to the details, and then proceed to give our view of the general 
history, in order thus, by a due consideration of both, to attain 
to a correct appreciation of the whole. 



EXPLANATION OF THE DETAILS. 



293 



CHAPTER L 

EXPLANATION OF THE DETAILS. 

In the first place there arises the question as to the meaning of 
the several temptations. This has, as is well known, been made 
the theme of frequent discussion. And yet the opinions even of 
the most recent commentators differ so widely, that it may well 
repay our trouble if we submit this point to a more minute 
investigation. 

The Temptation, which both Matthew and Luke agree in 
giving as the first, consists in the call addressed to Jesus to 
transform stones into bread. Now it is self-evident that such a 
temptation could only be made under certain conditions. Mani- 
festly the person to whom it was addressed must, on the one hand, 
have been so constituted that he could feel a want of food, which 
in that moment could not be gratified in any ordinary way ; and 
again, he must have been one who was supposed to possess the 
power of satisfying that want in an extraordinary and miraculous 
manner. Now, to the former of these conditions, the intimation 
of the Evangelist, that Jesus was then an hungered, and that He 
was in the desert, where the ordinary means of support were 
wanting, exactly corresponds : the latter, again, we find in the 
opening words of the Temptation, "If Thou be the Son of God," 
which at once bespeak a personality possessed of supernatural 
powers. The Temptation is thus seen to consist in this : that a 
person endowed with a power to work miracles was called upon 
to exercise that power to satisfy his human wants, at a time 
when he was hard pressed by physical need. 

Such being the Temptation itself, let us consider how Jesus 



THE TEMPTATION. 



meets it. We may anticipate that His answer will throw some 
light upon the nature of the Temptation. But here we are met 
by several conflicting opinions. The retort of Jesus is expressed 
in words taken from Deuteronomy viii. 3 : " Man doth not live 
by bread alone, but by every word that proceedeth out of the 
mouth of the Lord shall man live." The majority of commen- 
tators understand the meaning of these words to be this : The 
preservation of the life of man is not necessarily connected with 
the ordinary means of subsistence, but it can be sustained without 
bread by the word, i.e., commandment that proceeds from the 
mouth of God, in an extraordinary way, as the Israelites were 
sustained by manna in the wilderness. 1 This explanation does 
certainly correspond with the meaning of the words as they 
occur in Deuteronomy, taken along with their context. Yet we 
have good ground for asking, whether this sense must neces- 
sarily attach to the words as quoted by Jesus. There can 
be no doubt that Jesus and His apostles often made use of 
passages of the Old Testament in a freer and a spiritual sense, 
— that they frequently gave them a more general application, 
and raised them altogether into a higher sphere. And there is 
reason enough to suppose that this is the case in the passage 
before us. In the explanation usually given, a special import is 
attached to the fact that Jesus could make for Himself bread 
to satisfy His hunger. But this is clearly incorrect. The 
question is not as to His appeasing His hunger by means of 
bread in particular, but to His doing so by any means, and His 
employing for that purpose miraculous agency. Bread is men- 
tioned merely as the staff of life, and perhaps also as bearing 
some resemblance to the stones which were to be transformed 
into bread. The antithesis is certainly not between bread and 
any other means of life, but between it and the Word of God : 
in other words, between the means of bodily nourishment, and 
1 See Neander in his Life of Christ. 



EXPLANATION OF THE DETAILS. 



295 



the means of spiritual nourishment. Thus when Jesus is asked by 
the tempter to make His power to do miracles available for sup- 
plying His physical wants — to use the higher, God-given faculty 
in the service of mere human self-gratification — He replies, in a 
spirit of freedom and self-denial which triumphs over the mere 
sensible want : No ; for there is a higher life which is not up- 
held by any outward nourishment, but which lives by all that 
comes from the mouth of God. In these words He says essen- 
tially the same thing which He afterwards expressed thus : " My 
meat is to do the will of Him that sent Me, and to finish His 
work." (John iv. 34.) 

The temptation which in St Luke occupies the third place is 
— more correctly, as there can be no doubt — placed second in St 
Matthew. This temptation consisted in a summons addressed 
to Christ to cast Himself from the pinnacle of the temple, and, 
like the first, goes upon the assumption of a peculiar personality 
in Jesus : viz., it presupposes that the Tempted was, as the 
" Son of God," — the Sent of God, under the special care and 
protection of Jehovah. Many have supposed that Jesus was 
here asked to perform only an epideiktical, an apparent miracle. 
In favour of this view there is adduced not only the character 
of the miracle demanded, which is something quite exorbitant, 
but the fact that the people did afterwards actually require from 
Jesus miracles from heaven in attestation of His Divine mission. 
But this explanation cannot be received. In the first place, 
it is clear that in order to an epideiktical miracle spectators were 
indispensable who should be sensibly overpowered by the mani- 
festation, whereas throughout the whole scene we do not read of 
any one being present. There is, also, another consideration to 
be borne in mind: when the tempter calls upon Jesus to throw 
Himself down from the temple because God would protect Him 
by His angels, it is not so much to the wonder-working power of 
Jesus Himself that He appeals, as to the miraculous help of God: 



296 



THE TEMPTATION. 



Jesus is not called to perform some unheard-of miracle, He is 
called to do something apparently dangerous. There is here no 
appeal made to Christ's power to perform miracles : this formed 
the point of the first temptation, and had it occurred here it would 
have been a mere repetition. 

But this view of the Temptation is best answered by an exami- 
nation into the texts of Scripture quoted on the occasion, both 
by the tempter, and by our Lord in His answer. The passage 
quoted by the tempter, " He shall give His angels charge over 
thee, to keep thee in all thy ways ; They shall bear thee up in 
their hands, lest thou dash thy foot against a stone " (Ps. xci. 11, 
12), contains no reference whatever to any popular approbation 
to be gained by the performance of a miracle, but solely to the 
Divine protection, under which the Beloved of Jehovah stood. 
The reply of our Lord, " Thou shalt not tempt the Lord thy 
God," taken from Deuteronomy vi. 16, is also without any re- 
ference to a miracle, and only points out how impious and vain 
it would be to tempt Providence by throwing one's-self needlessly 
in the way of danger. The enticing element in this temptation 
was the idea of calling forth the Divine protection, of proving 
whether God would preserve His anointed Son in circumstances 
of most imminent danger, and that a danger which did not 
come in the simple, God-appointed path of duty, but was arbi- 
trarily and vain-gloriously incurred. There can be no doubt 
that a temptation like this has a certain charm for men who feel 
penetrated with a consciousness that they have a special mission 
to perform ; and many a one whom an idea like this has blinded, 
has precipitated himself from the pimiacle of the temple into the 
abyss of perdition. Thus the attempt might well be made with 
Jesus, who, though pre-eminently the Sent of God, was yet 
truly man, to test whether the thought of putting the Divine pro- 
tection to the utmost proof had no attractions for Him : and this 
attempt constitutes the second temptation. In it we have vividly 



EXPLANATION OF THE DETAILS. 



297 



brought before us what a contrast there is between a true and 
sound confidence in God, by the strength of which even one who 
is conscious of a high mission is yet enabled to walk in the God- 
appointed way of his calling, and that false assurance by which 
he is led, in the vain idea of a higher protection, arbitrarily to se- 
lect for himself paths of danger. 

We have now to speak of the third temptation. Rightly is this 
temptation put last by St Matthew, for it is the most trying and 
the most alluring of the three, and in it the tempter appears 
in a form undisguised. The devil calls upon the Saviour to 
w r orship him; and promises that, if He does so, he will give 
Him all the kingdoms of the world. The temptation here has 
been generally held to consist in the invitation to found an earthly 
kingdom, — an external theocracy, instead of the true inner king- 
dom of God which Christ had come to establish. But another 
view has also been maintained. It has been said, that there is no 
question whatever in the narrative of the founding of a kingdom, 
whether earthly or heavenly ; and that what the temptation really 
consisted in was, the thought of employing a bad means in order 
to gain an end which might in itself be good, of seeking to acquire 
dominion by doing homage to Satan, the power of evil, acknow- 
ledging his authority, and submitting Himself to his rule. This 
exposition is correct if we are to confine our view to the words 
spoken by Satan. But this we cannot do : we must contemplate 
these words in the connection in which they stand, and in con- 
junction with the idea by which they were suggested. Imme- 
diately before, we read that Satan had shown our Lord the king- 
doms of the world and their glory. Now, to go no farther than 
this expression, the " glory" of the kingdoms of the world which 
he showed of itself points to a kingdom, not of self-denying love, 
but of splendid dominion, and thus to a mere outward kingdom. 
Besides, Satan appears here as the Prince of the world, 1 and 
1 Korfcoz-teLrue. See John viii. 44, xii. 31 (" The prince of this world, h 



298 THE TEMPTATION. 

offers to transfer to Christ his sovereignty over it. Now such a 
kingdom as he could possess 1 and offer, must from its very na- 
ture have been a mere earthly — external — ungodly kingdom. A 
sovereignty received from Satan could only be one opposed to 
the dominion of the true kingdom of God ; and he who could de- 
sire such a sovereignty must have been willing to enter into a 
league with the devil, and render him homage. In the idea of 
worshipping the devil, viewed in itself, there could be nothing 
alluring, nothing tempting ; and if the evangelical record brings 
prominently forward the proposed homage of our Lord to Satan, 
it can only be because there was something to be obtained by 
this homage which might prove attractive and ensnaring : and 
this was the world-dominion which might in this way be attained. 
The dominion of the world is thus the great object here presented 
by the devil, but at the same time he states what the only way 
is whereby that could be gained. And the way is unquestionably 
bad : for it is by subjection to the Prince of the world. And 
in rejecting it, which He does by a reference to the great truth, 
that to God alone, the Lord of all, are homage and worship due, 
Jesus at the same time renounces the object which could only 
thus be arrived at. We see, then, that in this temptation a king- 
dom of outward glory is offered to Jesus, as One who was fully 
conscious that He was destined to be a King. And the great 
point here brought out is, the antagonism between these two 
kingdoms : a kingdom of the world which could be set up only 
by the use of worldly means, and a kingdom of God which is not 

rev xorpov) ;" Eph. ii. 2 (" The prince of the power of the air — h »^x m T *>* 
llovcr'ia.srov bi^os") ; Eph. vi. 12 (" Ye wrestle . . . against powers — *%b$ t«.s tZovrtets, 
against the rulers of the darkness of this world— a^e? tovs jco<rpoxoocro%oc,$ row <rxb?ov$ 
rov aluves tovtou, against wicked spirits (the spiritualities of wickedness) in the 
heavenlies — *%os roc rvwfjt,c&Ti%co ty\$ xovv)%txs ev ro7s i,<ffov$ccv'toii' 1 ) ; and other passages. 

1 " The devil said unto him, All this power will I give Thee, and the glory of 
them ; for that is delivered unto me, and to whomsoever I will, I give it." 
Luke iv. 6. 



EXPLANATION OF THE DETAILS. 



299 



to be established in any carnal way, but must have its founda- 
tion in the pure worship of God alone. 

If we now briefly sum up what has been said, we shall find 
that in the three temptations the following alternatives were 
presented. First alternative : Use of supernatural gifts in the 
service of sensible self-love ; or a self-sacrificing entrance upon 
a higher life, in the assurance that God would supply the 
needful sustenance therein. Second alternative : A misguided 
trusting in God, which, in the consciousness of a special mission, 
enters upon self-chosen paths of danger whither duty calls not ; 
or a pious confiding in God, which shuns all devious, God- 
tempting courses, and meekly follows in the prescribed paths 
of duty. Third alternative : Acquisition of worldly might and 
glory by worldly means ; or contempt of mere earthly greatness, 
as well as of the carnal means by which it must be won, and 
single-eyed and unwearied labour in the service of God to 
establish and advance His true kingdom. 

Having thus determined the meaning of the three temptations, 
we have now to answer the question touching what or whom 
they concern. It may appear to many that this is quite a super- 
fluous question, as it is so clearly and emphatically stated that 
it was Jesus who was the object of the devil's assaults. Yet 
some have thought otherwise. Some have taken exception to 
the possibility of Jesus being tempted at all, others to the par- 
ticular form of temptation recorded in the Gospel. Conse- 
quently they have regarded the alternatives expressed above as 
intended to form merely a symbolical representation of the 
fundamental principles of His kingdom, 1 or of certain maxims 

1 This is done chiefly by Pfeiffer (Deutsche Zeitschrift, 1851, No. 22); accord- 
ing to whom the three temptations are:— (1) The temptation to satisfy the 
sensible wants of men, and thus to obtain authority and dominion among them; 
(2) To set up a kingdom of caprice, of lawlessness and license; (3) To establish 
a sovereignty of mere external power. ^ 



300 



THE TEMPTATION. 



which were deemed essential to the usefulness of the members of 
His kingdom in general, or of the apostles in particular. Now 
there is a certain amount of truth in this view, inasmuch as 
whatever belongs to the Pounder of the kingdom of God has a 
typical character, and intimately concerns all its members. But 
the principal validity and import of the Temptation was in 
reference to Him who was its Pounder. If in our treatment of 
the Temptation we pass Him by, and apply the whole imme- 
diately to His kingdom and its members, we manifestly put a 
forced interpretation upon the narrative, and violate the natural 
sense not only of this portion of the history of Christ, but also 
of the whole apostolic Christology. 

It being thus apparent that it was Jesus Himself who was the 
subject of the Temptation, the next question that arises is : Was 
it chiefly as the Messiah or as a man that He was tempted? 
There are still, in the present day, writers who think that the 
temptations were solely of a general, human character: nay, 
some 1 even go so far as to regard them in the most general way 
possible, as the " lust of the flesh," the " pride of life," and the 
" lust of the eye." But it is manifest that these temptations 
presuppose in the Person tempted a very peculiar character 
and destiny ; nay more, they are evidently addressed to Jesus 
as the Founder of the kingdom of God itself. But as surely as 
the Temptation was a proving of Christ as Messiah, was it at 
the same time addressed to His human nature, for thus only 
could it be something real. Both sides of His nature must be 
regarded as concerned in it, if we are to reach a full view of the 
truth. 2 

1 As Rink, Deutsche Zeitschrift, 1851, No. 36. 

2 The Messianic reference is brought too prominently forward by Laufs, 
almost to the exclusion of the human. His view of the Temptation is original 
and ingenious, but appears to be without Scripture foundation. In the first 
temptation, he finds the false idea of a Messiah after the pattern of Moses, 
which obtained among the Jews; in the second, the thought of beginning the 



EXPLANATION OF THE DETAILS. 



301 



Although, it was to Jesus Himself that the Temptation imme- 
diately and chiefly referred, its bearings are not confined to 
Him. For He is not an isolated individual, but the type of His 
kingdom and its members : hence this narrative has a more 
general and a typical significance. Considered as a testing of 
the Messiah, the Temptation must be of importance for the 
whole kingdom of God, and typical for its members. The 
principles which the Messiah opposed to the assaults of the 
devil, are also the principles of His kingdom, and maxims for 
the guidance of its members. And these we have seen to be 
self-denial and devotion to the service of God, and a life sus- 
tained by the word of His mouth ; which renounces all arbitrary 
and capricious self-will, and walks in faith the God-appointed 
way ; which surrenders itself entirely to the service of God, that 
it may establish by His strength a kingdom which shall unfold 
itself from within. But since Christ could be tempted as Mes- 
siah, only in so far as He could be tempted as a man, we must 
own that this history of His temptation has in it something of 
a more general character, and that it must be regarded as 
typical of the temptations by which men are commonly assailed, 
Only, there is a distinction to be drawn here. In the case of 
Jesus, the temptations addressed to Him presuppose certain 
peculiar personal qualities : the first is based upon His power 
of working miracles ; the second, upon His supernatural mission ; 
the third, upon His destination to supremacy. Now these quali- 
ties are by no means the common possession of men. Still, the 
first temptation may be regarded as a common, a universal human 
temptation, if for the power to do miracles we substitute those 

work of Messiah at the Temple, in defiance of all dangers, and thus to subjugate 
the whole country with one blow ; in the third, he discovers the false idea of a 
Messiah in the heathen sense, which was based on the expected alliance of the 
Messiah with the Roman power. This view, in spite of its ingenuity, is too far 
removed from the literal interpretation of the Gospel narrative (especially the 
answers of our Lord), and by far too artificial, to be entertained. 



302 



THE TEMPTATION. 



God-given faculties which every man possesses, and which every 
man may either turn to purposes of selfishness and self-love, 
or use in the service of a higher life. The second temptation can 
apply more particularly only to that smaller circle to whom, by 
reason of great mental endowments, or a high position in life, a 
peculiar mission has been assigned. And yet it may be viewed 
as in a sense applicable to all ; for all, even the humblest, have a 
work to do, and a God-appointed way to follow. The third temp- 
tation also has a special application only to the very small num- 
ber of those who are called to a position of sovereignty : and yet 
the general principle of the superior glory of inward and spiritual 
dominion to mere outward dignity and power may have some im- 
port for all. All the temptations have thus a more general ap- 
plication, for in one form or another there is in all men some 
point assailable to their attack. In every man there is some sin- 
ful tendency by means of which he may be led astray ; any man 
may be guilty of the sin of wantonly tempting Providence ; any 
man may cherish a lust of earthly rule. With regard to the 
principles put forth by Jesus in opposition to the tempter, it is 
evident that these are of universal application. 

We have thus, by an examination of the several temptations 
in detail, obtained a starting-point for the exposition of the nar- 
rative regarded as a whole. Let us then proceed to this latter 
consideration. 



GENERAL VIEW OF THE TEMPTATION. 303 



CHAPTER II. 

GENERAL VIEW OF THE TEMPTATION. 

If, in their expositions of the details of this history, commenta- 
tors have held many different opinions, this is vastly more the 
case in the view taken by them of the whole narrative. We find 
here a graduating scale of opinions which embraces all conceiv- 
able diversities, from that spiritualism which regards the history 
as nothing more than a dramatic representation of certain doc- 
trines, on the one hand ; to the realism which receives every word 
in its most literal acceptation, on the other. We may, however, 
make a general division of the various explanations into two 
principal classes : the first consisting of those according to which 
the whole narrative is a mere product of thought, having no basis 
in actual facts ; and the second of those in which an actual his- 
torical substratum is recognized, which allow this passage to be 
the record of a real temptation to which Jesus was actually sub- 
jected. For the reasons adduced in our Treatise, we take up a 
decided position on the latter side of the question. We must, 
however, consider somewhat particularly the explanations of the 
former class, in order, by a brief refutation of these, to prepare 
the way for that view which to us appears the true one. 

SECTION FIRST. 

EXPLANATIONS WHICH REPRESENT THE WHOLE NARRATIVE AS A 
MERE PRODUCT OF THOUGHT. 

On the supposition that this narrative of the Temptation is 
nothing more than a mental creation without any objective his- 



304 



GENERAL VIEW OF THE TEMPTATION. 



torical foundation, these two suppositions are conceivable with 
regard to its authorship : it may have originated with Jesus 
Himself, or it may have been worked out by others. In the 
former case, it is supposed to have been a doctrinal exposition 
given by J esus, — a parable, having for its object to bring vividly 
before the mind of His disciples certain principles of His king- 
dom, and certain fundamental maxims to guide them in their 
work of establishing that kingdom. On the latter supposition, it 
is to be regarded simply as a my thus, — a tradition, which arose 
from the intention of glorifying Christ as the conqueror of evil 
Let us test these opinions. 

The view which regards the passage as a Parable, has, as is 
well known, been supported in modern times by names of no 
small weight in the Church. 1 It is however worthy of note, that 
the theologian who has most explicitly and fully defended this 
view, has himself seen cause to renounce it, and has adduced 
against it most important considerations. 2 Regarded in itself, 
the idea is not unworthy. It seems intelligible enough to sup- 
pose that Jesus should have prescribed to His disciples, at the 
beginning of His course, the fundamental maxims of their labours 
on behalf of the kingdom of God : namely, that they were to do 
no miracles for their own personal advantage ; that they were 
not to tempt God, or, (according to another view,) that they 
were to do nothing for the sake of mere ostentation ; and, 
finally, that they were not to found the kingdom of God on ex- 
ternal power and glory. 3 

1 Schleiermacher, Critischer Versuch iiber die Schriften des Lucas, S. 24 ff. 
Baumgarten- Crusius, Bibl. Theol. § 40, S. 303. Usteri, theol. Stud. u. Kritiken, 
1829, Heft 3, S. 456-461. Hase, Leben Jesu 3te Aufl. § 48, S. 85, 86. Hase 
however admits an actual temptation of Christ; only he holds that the inner 
temptation is presented as a parable, and moreover that the representation is 
of a mythical character, because there are unhistorical features in it. 

2 Usteri, Theol. Studien u. Kritiken, 1832, Heft 4, S. 729 ff. 

8 Different views are taken of the maxims supposed to have been thus de- 
livered. Some take them generally to be worldliness, covetousness, and ambi- 



GENERAL VIEW OF THE TEMPTATION. 305 



But it is difficult to see why Jesus should have chosen the 
form of parables to convey to the rnincls of His disciples these 
simple rules : and it is altogether inconceivable that, in the event 
of His really having done so, the disciples should from the first 
have so completely misunderstood those parables, that they have 
come down to us as history, and that we cannot discover the 
slightest trace of a parabolic character about them. This nar- 
rative, as it lies before us at the present day, appears as an im- 
portant event in the life-history of Jesus ; and there can be no 
doubt that, in the apostolical tradition concerning Him, it occu- 
pied a most conspicuous, and even an essential place. Everything 
in the story relates immediately to Jesus Himself. Nowhere do 
we find any direct reference to the apostles ; and indeed it is 
difficult to see what the point of such a reference here would have 
been : especially is it difficult to see how the third temptation 
could directly apply to them. 1 Then, surely if this was intended 
as part of the instructions delivered to the apostles, it would 
have come in more appropriately in the passage devoted to this 
special subject, viz., among the rules which Jesus gave them to 
guide them in their ministry. 

It cannot be doubted that the apostles applied this history 
much more directly to Jesus than to themselves : and in so doing 
they were in error if the exposition in question be the correct 
one. But a misunderstanding fallen into at the very first and 
by all the apostles would imply a stigma upon the teaching of 
Jesus Himself : for He must then have presented the thing to 
them in so unintelligible a way, that they took up what He meant 
to be a parable as actual history. But this idea is entirely con- 

tion, (Hase.) Others make them consist in the temptation to abuse miracu- 
lous gifts, whether for one's own purposes, or to cause a sensation, or to obtain 
the political power of the Messiah, (Theile, Theol. lit. Bl. 1811, Febr. Now. 
20,) etc. 

1 De Wette, exeg. Handb. i. 42. 



306 



GENERAL VIEW OF THE TEMPTATION. 



tradicted by the whole character of His teaching on other occa- 
sions. We could then account for the origin of the misunder- 
standing in no other way but by supposing that Jesus made 
Himself the subject of the parable; but this would have introduced 
an element of obscurity and uninteliigibility. For if the person 
of Jesus was in this way introduced into the parable, it must have 
been either with or without a definite purpose. If the former, — 
L <?., if Christ therein represented Himself as the Messiah who 
rejected every false principle of conduct, then the disciples were 
necessitated to think of some actual occurrence, some real temp- 
tation He had undergone, and then the parable would pass into 
history. If the latter, — if the percon of Jesus was introduced 
without any definite purpose, then it was manifestly unsuitable so 
to introduce it. For then the parable, being neither wholly his- 
tory nor wholly allegory, would have produced a vague, unsatis- 
factory impression of something that was partly the one and 
partly the other, would have thus been in fact a failure ; but how 
can this be supposed concerning Him who was the greatest Mas- 
ter in the use of parables ? 1 

The mythical interpretation of this passage has been variously 
represented. It was first defended by Usteri, 2 who sought to 
establish it in the following way: — The mythus is a poetical 
production, the substance of which is a religious or philosophical 
idea which is clothed in a historical garb. The idea thus pre- 
sented is something eternal, something which existed before all 
history, hence before the particular historical form in which it 
now appears. In the mythus, history, poetry, and philosophy 
are all in one, forming one truth, which may be an ideal truth 
merely, without there being any historical reality for it to rest 
upon. 

1 Against the parabolic interpretation compare Hasert, Stud. u. Kritiken, 
1830, 1, S. 74 ff.; and Strauss, Leben Jesu, Band 1, § 51, S. 416. 

2 Usteri in Theol. Studien u. Kritiken, 1832, 4, S. 781-791. 



GENERAL VIEW OF THE TEMPATTION. 



307 



The deeper truth of the Temptation consists in the idea that 
Christ and the devil are in absolute antagonism to each other, 
are absolutely apart from each other ; so that although the devil 
may assail Christ, and seek to tempt Him, Christ lets him have 
no advantage over Him, and will not yield to his temptations. 
This idea is presented to us historically as a threefold attempt of 
the devil to make Christ do evil, on the occasion when Christ 
(according to the legend), previous to His public appearing, had 
prepared Himself — after the example of His great predecessors, 
Moses and Elias— by prayer and fasting for His public ministry. 
Moreover, we find in the record all the three essential character- 
istic marks of the mythus : we have the religious idea ; the histo- 
rical form ; and, inasmuch as the whole story belongs to the 
earlier period of the life of Jesus which is involved in obscurity, 
we have also the pre-historical time. Thus argues TJsteri. 

No small difficulties arise in opposition to his view. With 
regard to the time, which he calls pre-historic, it must be said 
that it is scarcely pre-historic in the sense of the heathen myths ; 
but even if the phraseology be allowed, still it must be acknow- 
ledged that this period ended with His baptism ; and yet the 
temptation succeeds the baptism — and this not merely by acci- 
dent, but of necessity. Following this mode of argument, we 
should thus be obliged to own the existence of mythical ele- 
ments, not only in the Evangelium infantice, but even in the history 
of Christ's public life : and this (apart from other difficulties in 
the way) would quite destroy the alleged distinction between his- 
torical and pre-historical. The Old Testament analogy, which 
is here adduced, furnishes no proof of a mythus here : for why 
may not J esus as well as Moses and Elias have really retired into 
seclusion before entering upon His ministry ? But the principal 
consideration is this : It is difficult on the given explanation to 
find any real kernel in this mythus, and to point to any satisfac- 
tory connection between substance and form. The idea to be 



308 GENERAL VIEW OF THE TEMPTATION. 

clothed in an historical garb must surely be itself true : otherwise 
we have no mythus, we have a mere fabric of the imagination. 
Now what is the idea supposed to be represented here ? It is 
this, that Christ and the tempter are absolutely apart from each 
other ; that although the devil seeks to tempt Christ, Christ will 
not let Himself be tempted, for that to be tempted in a human 
sense is contrary to the nature of the Redeemer. Now it is not 
easy to see how the idea of absolute untentability, the impossi- 
bility of being tempted, can have been clothed in a historical form 
narrating an actual temptation. In truth, one would have ex- 
pected the idea to have been quite of a different kind ; for in- 
stance, that of an assault, a conflict of the devil against Christ. 
And are we to believe that the idea, that God and the devil are 
absolutely antagonistic to each other, would have been presented 
to us in the form of a tempting of God by the devil? Further, 
if the Temptation as a fact is contrary to the idea of the Redeemer, 
it must also as a mythus be contrary to that idea. If Christ 
could not in any wise be really tempted, then the idea of His 
temptation ought never to have once entered the minds of those 
who best knew Him. Thus, even in the mythical form, there 
would be here an error on the part of the apostles,— an error, 
too, affecting the cardinal point of the Christian religion, the 
knowledge of the Person of Christ. Finally : although we may 
say of the supposed fabricator, or fabricators of the mythus, that 
for them the devil existed as a real personality, this cannot be 
said of our exposition of the mythus. Hence another consider- 
able portion falls away from the actual mythus, and what remains 
presents from his stand-point a sadly incomplete and unsatisfac- 
tory appearance : for truly a tempter that does not exist, and a 
person tempted who could not be tempted, do form a most curi- 
ous subject for a Temptation-mythus ! As for the truth that 
Christ and evil stood in a hostile relation to each other, that was 
something perfectly self-evident, and needed no mythus to prove 



GENERAL VIEW OF THE TEMPTATION. 



309 



it: besides it could be illustrated much better in many other 
ways. 

The mythical view is presented in a more natural form by two 
other learned men, Strauss and cle Wette. Prom the general 
point of view taken by the former, 1 he could not have done other- 
wise than assign a mythical character to this portion of the evan- 
gelical history, as well as the rest : besides, this passage seemed 
to hold out to him certain points, of which he was eager to avail 
himself, in favour of the general correctness of mythical interpre- 
tation, because here several parallels from Jewish history might 
be brought forward. According to Strauss, the essential mean- 
ing of the mythus of the Temptation is to show that the Messiah, 
as the Head of all just men and the Representative of the people 
of God, must of necessity have been tempted in like manner as 
the principal men of God in Old Testament antiquity, like Abra- 
ham, and like Israel itself in the march through the wilderness. 
De Wette 2 expresses himself similarly with regard to the general 
import of the mythus. His words are : — " Satan is the enemy 
of the Messiah and of His kingdom ; and He having given Him- 
self up without reserve to the moral conflict (Hebrews iv. 15), 
had to do battle with nim throughout His whole life (Matt. xiii. 
39), and at the end of His life (John xiv. 30), and likewise on 
His entering upon life. As the accuser of men had proved Job, 
so did he prove the Messiah also ; and this he did at the first by 
the pleasures of the world, and at the last by its terrors." 

These expositors have this advantage over Usteri, that they 
admit the reality of Christ's being tempted, and in fact, in a 
much simpler way than that he follows, they make the substance 
of the mythus consist in the temptation of the Messiah by 
Satan, and not like him in the conflict with Satan. Moreover 
the story takes a much simpler form in their hands, from their 

1 Strauss, Leben Jesu, Band 2, § 52, S. 417-428, lste Ausgabe. 

2 De Wette, Exegetisehes Handbuch, 1. 42 and 43. 



310 GENERAL VIEW OF THE TEMPTATION. 



method of defining the conception of the mythus, and of applying 
it to the evangelic record. But from that there arises, it must 
be confessed, another and a greater difficulty. The question 
relates to the general view of the evangelical history, especially 
in so far as that is taken up with the public and Messianic life 
of J esus. If this be entirely mythical, with the exception of a very 
small basis of fact, if it be even in most places interfused with 
mythical elements, then undoubtedly the Temptation must be- 
long to those parts whose mythical character is most incontest- 
able. It is unnecessary, however, after the elaborate discussions 
to which this mythical view of the Gospel-narrative generally has 
been subjected, to show here once more what difficulties lie in 
the way of that theory. But if, on the contrary, the mythical 
hypothesis be false, and if the evangelical record rest in the main 
upon a historical foundation, the necessity arises to establish the 
historical basis also of the separate parts of that record, even 
those which are surrounded by most difficulties. And so long as 
this can be done for the narrative of the Temptation in a satis- 
factory way, we shall not see ourselves necessitated to have re- 
course to the mythical explanation. 



SECTION SECOND. 

EXPLANATIONS WHICH RECOGNIZE A HISTORICAL BASIS OF 
THE NARRATIVE. 

The explanations according to which our narrative records an 
actual occurrence may be divided into two classes. First, there 
are those which regard the event related as something which 
took place inwardly in the soul of Jesus ; and those which re- 
gard it as something external, as an actual occurrence between 
Jesus and a person who really tempted Him, Now, as it is cer- 



G ENTERAL VIEW OF THE TEMPTATION. 



311 



tain that if a real temptation took place there must have been a 
conflict in the soul of Jesus, it appears as if the idea of a merely 
internal occurrence would be by no means satisfactory. Besides, 
such an explanation is scarcely adequate to the meaning of the 
Evangelists who record the Temptation. We shall thus be ne- 
cessitated to acknowledge that there was something really 
objective in the transaction. But, before proceeding to demon- 
strate this, we will briefly test the opinion that the Temptation 
was only of a spiritual and internal character. 

This view appears in three different forms. The event inter- 
nally experienced may have been a vision, or it may have been 
a dream, or finally it may have consisted of a number of seductive 
thoughts which came before the mind of Jesus when in a state of 
perfect consciousness. 

The idea of a vision or ecstasy introduces an element of fanci- 
fulness and extravagance, which is entirely opposed to all that we 
read elsewhere of the clearness and self-possession which charac- 
terized the enthusiasm of Jesus. Besides, according to this ex- 
planation, the wicked seducing thoughts rise up from the soul of 
Jesus Himself, which presupposes that there dwelt in that soul 
unclean and unholy imaginations : this we cannot admit. 

The same may be said of the dream-hypothesis. 1 Then, too, 
there is nothing in the narrative to indicate where the supposed 
dream begins and where it breaks off. And above all, a tempta- 
tion in a dream is virtually no temptation ; for in order to be 
proved and tried, a man must be in full possession and have full 
control, of Himself. If the conflict was dreamt, so was the vic- 
tory too : and thus the narrative loses all its meaning. 

Among the interpretations which belong to this category, the 

one which appears most plausible is that which represents the 

events as a mental experience undergone in a state of perfect 

1 See Meyer, die Versuchuug Christi als Bede Utungsvoller Traum. Theol. 
Stud. u. Krit. 1831-32, S. 319. 



312 



GENERAL VIEW OF THE TEMPTATION. 



self-consciousness. According to this view, Jesus is supposed, 
before entering upon His public ministry, to have vividly realized 
the false and carnal idea of the Messiah which was prevalent in 
the world around Him, and yet, notwithstanding the attractions 
it presented, both sensible and spiritual, to have entirely rejected 
it, and to have decided Himself for a life of activity only in a 
divinely-appointed way. This inward experience Jesus is sup- 
posed to have afterwards communicated to the disciples in the 
more intelligible form of an outward temptation, in which He 
holds up to their view the process of thought through which He 
passed. In this form His communication has found a place in 
the evangelistic record of Jesus as the Messiah. 1 

In support of this view there may be quoted scriptural repre- 
sentations of a similar symbolical character, and reference may 
be made to the constantly recurring fact, that inward experiences 
are presented in a figurative form as outward facts. It must also 
be admitted, that this explanation allows of a higher degree of 
actual temptation than do those above referred to. And yet it 
has great defects, and cannot be regarded as in any way exhaus- 
tive of the meaning of the text. It is not enough to confine the 
trial to the Messianic character of Jesus. It must have a refer- 
ence likewise to His humanity. Here too we must repeat the 
objection, that it is absolutely opposed to the GospeMdea of 
Jesus to suppose that the temptation was suggested by His own 
soul. It must have come to Him from without, — from a real, ob- 
jective source. Certain it is, that the evangelical history never 
intended to symbolize by the person of Satan, thoughts which had 
arisen from the soul of Jesus. 

If then we accept the narrative of the Evangelists simply as it 
lies before us, it will appear indisputably evident that what we 
have to do with here is an- external event, which, from its very 
nature, had a close connection with the soul of Jesus. Further : 

1 Compare Hocheisen, Tubinger Zeitschrift, 1833, 2, S. 124. 



GENERAL VIEW OF THE TEMPTATION. 



313 



the idea of the Evangelists is evidently of a personal tempter 
acting upon Jesus from without, in order to seduce Him from the 
way of truth, and, more particularly, from that way which as 
Messiah He was called to walk in. Some who have acknowledged 
this, but who at the same time have disliked the idea of the 
tempter having been the devil, have endeavoured to substitute 
for him some human tempter, whether an individual or a body of 
men, and have imagined that it was by a priest or a Pharisee, or by 
a deputation from the Sanhedrim, that the seductive propositions 
were made to Jesus. 1 But the simple meaning of the words of 
Scripture preclude this idea. Occurring without the article, the 
word dLdfioXos might mean a tempter generally, human or other ; 
but with the article it can only be understood of the chief of evil 
spirits ; and the same is true of ireipafav with the article. Besides, 
in the mouth of a man these temptations would be curious, strange, 
inadmissible, especially the demand to be worshipped, and the 
promise of dominion conjoined therewith. In a word, this ex- 
planation is so little in accordance with the manner of ancient 
times, and the spirit of Scripture, that it must be regarded as a 
foreign, superinduced invention of modern thought, and as such 
is unworthy of our acceptance. 

Accordingly, nothing remains to us, but to understand the 
tempter to be Satan, as the Evangelists represent. And then 
we have the following alternative presented to us : either we must 
deny the historical credibility of the evangelistic account, and re- 
gard the whole as a mythus ; or, admitting its trustworthiness, 
we must take the record as it is given us, and endeavour to ren- 
der it as intelligible as possible. We decide for the latter alter- 
native, and shall accordingly make a few remarks on this view 
of the subject. 2 

1 Lange has a peculiar opinion on this point. Leben Jem, Theil. i., Band 2. 
Abschnitt 7, Seite 205-230. 

2 The view of the whole as a temptation by Satan is defended by Olshausen, 



314 



GENERAL VIEW OF THE TEMPTATION. 



The personal appearance of Satan as the tempter of Jesus has 
been objected to on various grounds. Doubtless the opinion of 
those who have urged those objections has been much, even when 
unconsciously, influenced by their general scruples against admit- 
ting his personal existence at all. However, we must for the 
present leave out of account this general objection, and speak 
solely of those which bear immediately upon our subject. It is 
argued that the bodily appearance of the devil, or his speaking, 
are never elsewhere hinted at in the New Testament. The per- 
sonal appearance of the devil, even if disguised in a human form, 
(to which the text makes no allusion whatever,) must at once 
have taken from the Temptation all its attractions ; for the Son of 
God must have recognized him at a glance. 1 If we are to realize 
the narrative as throughout historical, many difficulties arise 
which it is by no means easy to set aside. We are told, for in- 
stance, that Jesus followed the devil to the mountain and to the 
pinnacle of the Temple. Did He follow him freely or by con- 
straint ? If of His own will He followed the devil, then the will 
of the devil determined His will : if against His will He followed 
Him, then was He in the power of the devil. Again, are not the 
temptations somewhat too maladroit for the subtlest of spirits ? 
And how is the showing Him all the kingdoms of the world to be 
understood ? Here at least one must renounce the literal inter- 
pretation ; and if you may do so here, where are you to stop ? 

These and similar questions might be raised in goodly number, 
and in truth they cannot all be answered so as to remove every 
difficulty. We must not forget that we have here to do with a 
subject about which, from its very nature, there must ever hang 

Biblical Commentary, vol. i. p. 169 (Clark's For. T. Lib.), though he does not 
altogether abide by the literal interpretation of the text. Compare also JDe 
Wette, Exegetisches Handbuch, i. 38. Ewald (Die Versuchung Christi ) defends 
the literal interpretation ; against whom Theile, theol. Lit. Blatt., February 
1841, No. 20. Finally, compare Ebrard, Wissenschaftliche Kritik, S. 298. 
i De Wette, Exeget. Handbuch, i. 37. 



GENERAL VIEW OF THE TEMPTATION. 315 

a certain amount of obscurity. Our general answer is as follows : 
Without entering at present upon a discussion of the Scripture 
doctrine of the devil, we must recognize that a belief in a king- 
dom of evil spirits, and a ruler thereof, as well as of their influ- 
ence upon men, is an important part of the circle of thoughts of 
our Lord and His apostles. This is too expressly laid down to 
allow us to suppose, that the expressions of the New Testament 
on this subject are used merely in deference to the views commonly 
entertained by their contemporaries ; in short, it is impossible to 
think of a kind of accommodation here. Whoever then receives 
the doctrine not merely of the apostles, but of Jesus Himself, 
must receive this portion of it along with the rest. Now, if the 
existence of the devil and his influence over men be admitted, it 
will no longer be very difficult to believe that he actually tempted 
our Lord. On the contrary, we shall have to own that there is 
a very peculiar significance in this fact. And its' significance 
consists not merely in what has been already referred to, viz., 
that Jesus, in conquering Satan, proved Himself victorious over 
the principle of evil generally : more than this, there is the 
further consideration, that in the Temptation, " it is a personal 
will that Jesus repels and conquers." 1 Undoubtedly there are 
temptations which come from things or from persons, without 
their conscious will. But where, as in the case before us, there 
is temptation in a pre-eminent degree, the seductive influence 
will not come from an unconscious agent, but will proceed from 
a determined purpose to lead astray,— will therefore proceed 
from the will of the tempter. And to this the evangelical nar- 
rative makes express allusion. Now if we admit this, we shall 
have to understand the case as the narrative presents it to us. 
In other words, if we hold by the historical character of the 
narrative, we must yet at the same time distinguish between the 
recognition of its substantial validity, and a literal interpretation 
1 Martensen's Christliche Dogmatik, § 105. 



316 GENERAL VIEW OF THE TEMPTATION. 



of every detail. It is evident that the narrative cannot be taken 
literally ; in proof of which we need not go beyond this one fact, 
that there is no mountain from which all the kingdoms of the 
world can be seen. There is undoubtedly somewhat of a sym- 
bolical character in the manner in which the facts are repre- 
sented. 1 Pictures are here held up to our imagination in order 
to impress as strongly as possible upon our mind the fundamental 
truths of the history. Hence it happens that to modern taste 
the temptations appear coarse and unskilful. That they have 
nevertheless a very important meaning, and are in perfect keep- 
ing with the circumstances in which our Lord was then placed, 
has, we hope, been sufficiently shown by our previous exposition. 
The visible appearance of Satan, and the different situations in 
which Jesus is presented to us in the different temptations, may 
however easily belong to the symbolical part of the history. At 
least, without doing any disparagement to its substantial truth, 
we may easily conceive that the media through which the devil 
tempted Jesus were more of a spiritual nature than the letter of 
the narrative describes, and that those mental experiences, for 
which it was impossible to find any adequate expression in words, 
were delineated in a series of striking pictorial representations. 

1 Compare Neanders Life of Jesus, 5 Aufl. S. 113, 122 ;-— of English Trans- 
lation (4th ed. Bonn's Libr. 1852), pp. 74, 77. 



INDEX, 



I. -PASSAGES OF SCRIPTURE ILLUSTRATED OR 
EXPLAINED, 



Gen. Hi. 6, 


jfage 

176 


Mark v. 1-20, . 


Pag« 

184 


Deut. vi. 16, . 


296 


... x. 18, 


203-206 


. . . viii, 3, 


294 


... xi. 11-26, 


183 


1 KiDgs xix. 8-15, 


64 


... xi. 15-19, 


185 


Isaiah ix. 6, 


71 


... xiv. 32-43, 


178 


... liii. 2, . 


227 


Luke i. 15, 32, . 


60 


... liii. 9, 


58 


... ii. 41, 42, 


88, 182 


Psalms xxii. 1, 


179 


... iv. 13, 


177 


xlv. 


227 


... viii. 26-39, 


184 


... xci, 11, 


296 


... xv. 15, 18, 


34 


Matthew iii. 13-17, 


95 


... xviii. 9-14, 


93 


iii. 15> 


104 


... xviii. 19, 


203-206 


iv. 1-10, 165-176, 


293-316 


... xix. 42, . 


158 


... v. 17, 


104 


... xix. 45-48, 


185 


vii. 11, 


104 


... xxii. 39-47, 


178 


vii. 20, 


109 


... xxiii. 46, 


180 


vii. 29, 


240 


... xxiii. 47, 


55 


viii. 28-34, . 


184 


... xxiv. 28, 


191 


... xi. 17, 


240 


John i. 31-33, . 


88 


xi. 28, 


271 


... ii. 14-18, 


184 


xi. 29, 


73 


... iii. 11, 


240 


xv. 18, 


28 


... iv. 34, 


295 


xix. 17, 


203-206 


... v. 31, 


111 


xix. 27-30, . 


156 


... vi. 15, 


155 


xxi. 12-17, . 


184 


... vi. 64, 70, 


188, 189 


xxi. 17-22, . 


183 


... vi. 68, 


241 


xxv. 40, 


273 


... vii. 6, 17, 49, 50, 


248 


xxvi. 36-47, , 


178 


... vii. 8-10, 


191 


xxvii. 19, 54, 


55 


... viii. 13, 


103 



318 



INDEX. 



John viii. 46, . 


. 95 


-102 


... x. 16, 




271 


... x. 30, 




104 


... xiv. 6, 


.* 103, 153, 


281 


... xiv. 9, 




104 


... xiv. 12, . 




62 


... xiv. 19, . 




239 


... xiv. 27, . 




65 


... xvi. 9, 




35 


... xvii. 3, 




248 


... xvii. 21, . 


271, 


274 


... xvii. 24, . 




277 


... xviii. 37, 




74 


... xix. 30, . 




180 


... xx. 22, 23, 




95 


Romans v. 19, ' 




75 


... vi. 23, 




37 


viii. 3, 




161 


viii. 7, 




34 


xiv. 23, 




36 





Page 


x liibiHidiia x.v. ^fci, . 


238 


A <U<JI IHLlilcills V. li. 


114. Ilfi 117 


VjrdlclCilclIls 11. ^U, • 


Tift 

• no 


V. 21, 


• lOI 


JT Illlippiduo 11. o, . 


7^ 

. to 


X X. IlcobclIUHIcllJo 11. rkf . 


27 


9 Timnt hv i 1 0 


275 


XXcUItJWSs IV. XOf . 


170, 181 


v 7 

V. /, . 


180 


v q q 
v. o, y, 


75 


vii 9fi 97 

... VII. AU) ^ < , . 


261 266 


ix. 12, 26-28, 


266 


James i. 14, 


! 163 


... i. 15, . 


29 


... ii. 8-10, 


30 


... iv. 12, . 


34 


2 Peter i. 4, 


278 


1 John i. 8, 


96 


... ii. 23, . 


281 



II.-SUBJEOTS 

Ackermann quoted, 253. 

Action and suffering" combined in 

Jesus, 72. 
Adam, the second, 236, etc. 
Agony of Jesus in Gethsemane, 

177-179. 

'A^ritz, import of the word investi- 
gated, 96, etc. 

, Aftt,fA<x,%T / y}o , {o& and ocvcc,/xu.%r'/iro;, the mean- 
ing of the words examined, 134. 

Apollinaris, his Christology, 16. 

Apollonius of Tyana and Jesus Christ, 
133. 

Apologetics, the aim of, 3, etc. 
Appearance, the physical, of Jesus, 
227, etc. 

Athauasius, holds both the true hu- 
manity and sinlessness of Jesus, 17 ; 
seems to assume the sinlessness of 
other human individuals besides 
Jesus, 234, 235. 

Atonement, of Jesus by His sacrificial 
death, 257, etc. 

Autonomy, repudiated, 34. 

Baptism of Jesus, 95. 
Baur, quoted respecting Apollonius of 
Tyana, 133. 



AND AUTHORS. 

Bretschneider referred to, respecting 
the amartesia of Jesus, 85. 

Calling of Jesus, the, 62, 63. 
Centurion, the, his testimony to Jesus, 
55. 

Character of Jesus, import of the idea 
of the, 78. 

Christianity, its nature, 10 ; how to be 
vindicated, 9-11; is itself a proof of 
the sinlessness of Jesus, 111, etc.; 
its effects in the domain of morals 
and religion, 111 ; its new moral life, 
113-119; its new religious life in, 
119-122; combines the elements of 
morality and religion, 126. 

Christology of Apollinaris, the, 16. 

Church, the Christian, founded by 
Christ, 267-274; His kingdom, 
279. 

Church, of the Middle Ages, pressed 
Christ into the back-ground, 18. 

Cicero, quoted respecting Socrates, 
68; respectiDg the impossibility of 
finding a wise man, 131, 132. 

Condescension, the, of Jesus, 60. 

Consciousness of Jesus of His own 
sinlessness, 105-107. 



OF SUBJECTS AND AUTHORS. 



319 



Creative Divine influence, in the origin 
of the personality of Jesus, 198. 

Cross, the sufferings of Jesus on the, 
179-181. 

Cursing the fig-tree, Jesus, 183. 

Daub's conception of Judas, 187. 
Death of Jesus, the, a true sacrifice, 
257, etc. 

Demosthenes, De Corona, quoted, 134. 

Desertion by the Father, Jesus' sense 
of, 179, 180. 

Development, of the person of Jesus, 
145, etc.; does not necessarily in- 
volve antagonism with sin, 146. etc. ; 
of Jesus perfectly normal, 146, 147 ; 
opposed to everything unnatural and 
monstrous, 147-149. 

Devil, the, who tempted Jesus, 313. 

De Wette, quoted, 79, 80, 100, 201, 
202, 215, 307. 

AtdiiBoXog, 313. 

Divine nature of Jesus, viewed in rela- 
tion to His sinlessness, 232. 

Doing and suffering, their relation in 
the fife of Jesus, 72. 

Dream, the temptation of Christ not a, 
311. 

Duty, not the principle which regu- 
lated the actions of Jesus, but love, 
75. 

Ego, the, becomes the centre of life to 

fallen man, 36, etc. 
Epictetus, asserts the impossibility of 

moral stainlessness, 134. 
Error in knowledge, and fault in life, 

their connection, 224. 
Eternal life, the, sinless Jesus the 

pledge of, 275, etc. 
Example, superior in power to law, 

250. 

Example of goodness, why a belief in 

it is not universal, 252. 
Example of Jesus, its significance for 

us, not destroyed by holding the 

Divine formation of His personality, 

199, etc. 

Experience, arguments drawn from, 
against the sinlessness of Jesus exa- 
mined, 192-205. 

Evidence, moral, however strong, may 
be resisted, 50; this true in relation 
to the evidence for Christ's sinless- 
ness, 50, 51. 

Faith, in humanity and God, 194, etc. 



Faith, necessary on man's side to 
enter into fellowship with Jesus, 
264, etc. ; a receptive faculty, 285, 
etc. 

Faith, and love, due to Jesus, 283. 
Fathers of the Church, the older, their 

views of the physical appearance of 

Jesus, 227. 
Fellowship of men, a true, formed by 

Jesus, 267. 
Fig-tree, Jesus cursing the, 183. 
Finiteness, the, of Jesus, involves no 

sin nor guilt, 201, 202. 
Founder of the Church, Jesus the, 

267-274. 

Freedom, moral, an indestructible at- 
tribute of human nature, 197. 

Free-will, resident in a moral personal- 
ity, 25. 

Fulfilling of the law, love the only real, 
35. 

Gethsemane, 177-179. 

God, the centre of life to man, 36. 

Goethe quoted, 59, 79. 

" Good, none but One," 203-206. 

Goodness, the image of, in Jesus, 254. 

Goodness, the example of, why not the 

object of universal belief, 252. 
Gospel portraiture of Jesus, 58-82. 
Greatness of Jesus, 58; the repose of. 

60-66. 

Harmony of the life of Jesus, 64, etc. 

Hase's Life of Jesus, quoted, as to the 
harmony of the life of Jesus, 77 ; as 
to the plan of Jesus, 150, note ; 151, 
note ; as to the supposed struggle of 
Jesus with error, 152, 153, note ; as 
to the infallibility of Jesus, 225 ; as 
to the Temptation of Jesus, 304. 

Hasert, quoted, 178. 

Heathen world, under the dominion of 
nature without a consciousness of 
sin, 115 ; viewed in relation to piety 
and morals, 125. 

Hercules, parallel between Prodikus' 
story of, and the two ways, and the 
Temptation of Christ, 176. 

Hippolytus, first uses the word 
pu%TV)ros in reference to Christ, 16. 

Hocheisen, quoted, as to the supposed 
parallel between the Temptation of 
Jesus and that of Hercules, 176. 

Holiness, innocence, and freedom from 
sin, how distinguished, 46, etc. ; em- 



320 



INDEX. 



braces morality and religion, 123-127 ; 
as a quality of man and an attribute 
of God, 124; viewed in relation to 
heathenism and Judaism, 125, etc. 
Homer, quoted, 59. 

Human, the universally, and the indi- 
vidual, united in Jesus, 66-70. 

Human mind, the unity of the, 224, etc: 

Human nature of Jesus, 223. 

Humanity, the idea of, 212 ; realized in 
the sinless One, 213-217. 

Humility and majesty of Jesus, 73, 
etc. 

Humility, as an attribute of Jesus, does 
not imply sinfulness, 202. 

Idea of the character of Jesus, its 
value, 78 ; not the idea of, but the 
fact, has influenced the world, 128- 
140. 

Idea, the moral, arguments drawn from, 
against the sinlessness of Christ exa- 
mined, 206, etc. 

Idea, the Divine, of humanity, 212. 

Image of God in man, what, 268. 

Image of goodness in Jesus, all-com- 
prehensive and intelligible, 254. 

Image of the personality of Jesus, 
229, etc. 

Impeccability and sinlessness, the dif- 
ference between, 46. 
" In Christ," 265. 

Individual, the, and the universally 
human, united and reconciled in 
Christ, 66-70. 

Infallibility, the necessary result of 
moral perfection, 224, 225 ; this ap- 
plied to Christ Jesus, 226, etc. ; the 
reverse side of sinlessness, 248. 

Inferences from the sinlessness of 
Jesus, as to His human nature, 223, 
etc. ; in respect to His Divine na- 
ture, 232, etc, ; in regard to His re- 
lation to humanity, 244, etc. 

Jesus, personally viewed, the idea 
whence the vindications of Chris- 
tianity must proceed, 9 ; the influ- 
ence of His ima<4'e on the heart, 11 ; 
the fearful result of the alternative 
that He was liable to sin, 12; conse- 
quences flowing from His sinlessness, 
13, 14 ; possibility of sin in, 48, 49 ; 
His sinlessness may be denied, yet 
believable, 51 ; testimonies borne to 
His sinlessness by men of different 



characters, — Pilate, Pilate's wife, 
54, 55; the centurion, 55; Judas, 
55 ; apostles and apostolic men, 56, 
58 ; His moral greatness, 58, etc. ; 
condescension, 60 ; repose in great- 
ness a 60, 61 ; a religious and moral 
personality, 62 ; harmony of His life, 
64, etc.; relation of the individual 
to the human in the person of, as to 
family, nation, and humanity, 68-70 ; 
antithesis between the individual and 
the human abolished in, 69; His 
self-reliance, 70, etc.; union of do- 
ing and suffering, 72 ; humility and 
majesty, 73, etc. ; obedience to the 
Father's will, 74, etc. ; love, to man, 
75, etc. ; beauty of the portrait 
of, 78, etc. ; impossibility of invent- 
ing such a character, 80, etc. ; His 
sadness— its cause ; 153 ; His temp- 
tation, 165, etc. (see Temptation) ; 
His agony in Gethsemane, 177, etc. ; 
His sufferings on the cross, 179, 
etc. ; His relation to Judas, 186, etc. ; 
His physical appearance, 227, etc. ; 
image of His personality, 229, etc.'; 
as a teacher, 240, etc. ; as a worker 
of miracles, 241, etc. 
Jesus, the Gospel-portraiture of, 58, 
etc. 

Jesus, His self-testimony to His sin- 
lessness, 93-107. 

Jesus, His relation to humanity, 244 ; 
as the personal revelation of the 
nature and will of God, 246; as the 
Mediator between God and sinful 
man, 255-266 ; as the founder of the 
true fellowship of men, 267-274 ; as 
the pledge of eternal life, 275-279. 

Judaism, the consciousness of sin in, 
115 ; character of its conception of 
holiness, 125, 126. 

Judas, his testimony to Jesus, 55 ; re- 
lation of Jesus to, 186-191. 

Josephus' testimony to Jesus referred 
to, 55. 

Kant's view of the agreement between 
a blameless life and moral teaching, 
90. 

Kingdom of Jesus, ever set forth by 
Him as spiritual, 154, 156 ; not of 
this world, 270; the Church, 279. 

Lauf s view of the temptation of Jesus, 
300, 301, note. 



OF SUBJECTS AND AUTHORS. 



321 



Law, the moral, its nature and origin, 
29-34 ; fulfilled by love, 35 ; ineffi- 
cacious in comparison with example, 
250. 

Life, the, of a man, the index of his 

spirit, 89, 90. 
Life, eternal, the sinless Jesus the 

pledge of, 275, etc. 
Life, the moral religious, 268. 
Life, the new, the result of faith, 286. 
Love, the fulfilling of the law, 35. 
Love to God and man, the regulating 

power of the life of Jesus, 75-77. 
Liicke, quoted, respecting the sin- 

lessness of Jesus, 100. 
Luther quoted, 287. 

Majesty and humility of Jesus, 73. 
Mediation, its necessity, 263. 
Messiah, the Old Testament idea of, 56. 
Middle-age theologians, their adhesion 

to the sinlessness of Christ, 17, 18. 
Mind, the unity of the human, 224, etc. 
Miracles, their apologetic value, 7-9. 
Miracles of Jesus, the mode of their 

performance, 241, etc. 
Mission of Jesus, the, 150; its object, 270. 
Mohammed laid no claim to sinlessness, 

135. 

Monotheistic religions without the idea 

of sinless holiness in man, 134-137. 
Moral idea, the argument drawn from 

the, against the sinlessness of Christ, 

examined, 206, etc. 
Moral life, the new, in Christianity, 

113-118. 

Morality and religion united in holi- 
ness, 123-127. 

Morals and religion, influence of Chris- 
tianity in the domain of, 111 ; dis- 
tinguished, 112. 

Miiller, Dr Julius, his Doctrine of Sin 
quoted, 49; on the nature of per- 
sonal development, 146; on the moral 
idea, 214. 

Mythical view of the Temptation of 
Christ examined, 307, etc. 

Nationality of Jesus blended with the 

universal spirit of humanity, 67-69. 
Nature, subjection of the heathen to 

the dominion of, 115, 125. 
Nestorius and Nestorianism, falsely 

reproached with Pelagian views, 234. 
Nitzsch, quoted, as to the Mivuet, of 

Christ, 161 ; on the humbling in- 



fluence of Christ's glorious example, 
250, etc. 

Obedience of love, the great principle 

of the life of Jesus, 74, 75. 
Objections to the apostles' testimony to 

the sinlessness of Jesus examined, 
' 83, etc. 

Objections to the sinlessness of Jesus 
examined — first, His mental and 
moral development, 145-149 ; se- 
condly, the development of the Mes- 
sianic plan, 150-158; thirdly, His 
Temptations, 159, etc.; temptation 
viewed as allurement to sin, 167-176; 
temptation from sufferings, 176-181 ; 
fourthly, New Testament facts, viz.: 
His apparent disobedience, 182; 
His cursing the fig-tree, 183 ; per- 
mitting the demons to destroy the 
swine, 184 ; driving the buyers and 
sellers out of the Temple, 185 ; His 
relation to Judas, 186, etc. ; fifthly, 
experience, 192-205. 

(Etingers Contributions to the theo- 
logy of the Koran quoted, 135. 

Old Testament idea of the Messiah, 57. 

Old Testament sacrifices, their nature 
and design, 258. 

Olshausen's Biblical Commentary 
quoted, on the human development 
of the Messiah, 148, etc. ; on the 
call of Judas, 187; on the Tempta- 
tion of Jesus, 313. 

Order of the world, in the domain of 
nature, 24 ; in the ethical kingdom, 
24-26. 

Osiander, quoted, respecting the joy- 
ousness and sadness of Jesus, 157. 

Parable, the Temptation of Christ not 

a, 313. 
Uei^av, the, 313. 

Pelagianism, its relation to the person 

of Jesus, 233. 
Person of Jesus, the, not His doctrine, 

the source of His influence, 116 ; the 

centre of our religion, 282. 
Personality of Jesus, the religious, 62 ; 

formed by Divine creative influence, 

198 ; the image of the, 229, etc. 
Pfeiffer's view of the Temptation of 

Jesus, 299. 
Pilate, his testimony to Jesus, 54, 

55. 

Plan of Jesus, objection to the phrase, 
X 



322 



INDEX. 



150 ; not altered, ibid. ; but ever the 
same, 151-158. 
Plato, his portrait of a righteous man, 
130, 131. 

Plenipotentiary of God, Jesus the, 184. 

Poesy, never creative, 79. 

Portrait, the Gospel, of Jesus, 58-80 ; 

not the creation of the fancy of the 

early Christians, 80, etc. 
Possibility of sin in Jesus, a truth, when 

rightly understood, 48. 
Proof, moral, however strong, may be 

rejected, 50, 51. 

Reconciliation and redemption through 
Christ, 120 ; the need of, felt in all 
ages by men, 120, 121. 

Reformers, the Protestant, their prin- 
cipal merit, 18. 

Religion, its basis and nature, 4 ; and 
morality, distinguished, 112 ; com- 
bined in holiness, 123, etc. ; not a 
system of doctrine, but a relation of 
the life of person to person, 244, etc. 

Religion, a state, 269. 

Religious life, the new, created by 
Jesus, 119 ; consisting in reconcilia- 
tion and redemption, 120. 

Religious personality of Jesus, the, 62. 

Repose in greatuess, a characteristic 
of Jesus, 61-66. 

Revelation, the sinless Jesus, the per- 
sonal, of the will of God, 246. 

Righteous man, the, Plato's portrait 
of, 130, 131. 

Sacrifice of Jesus, a sacrifice of atone- 
ment, 257 ; the condition of, 259 ; 
reveals sin, 261, etc. ; awakens sor- 
row, 262 ; communicates grace, ibid. 

Sacrifices of the Old Testament, their 
nature and design, 258. 

Sadness of Jesus, its cause, 157. 

Salvation, only in Christ, 281, 282. 

2*$g, ascribed to Christ in a good 
sense, 161. 

Satan, who tempted Jesus, how to be 
viewed, 171, 172. 

Schleiermacher, quoted, on the sinless- 
ness of Jesus, 105 ; on the Saviour's 
personal development, 148. 

Selfishness, the real essence of sin, 
36, 37. 

Self-reliance of Jesus, 70, etc. 
Self-surrender, to God's holy will, 
man's right relation, 35. 



Self-testimony of Jesus, respecting 
His sinlessness — negative, 93-95; 
positive, 95-107. 

Sensuous element, the, in the virtue of 
Jesus, involved nothing sinful, 201. 

Sin, its nature, 23, etc. ; a violation of 
order, 24, etc. ; a coming short of the 
true destination of man, 26, etc. ; a vio- 
lation of moral law which has its root 
in the Divine personality, 29,. etc. ; 
a forsaking of God, 36 ; selfishness, 
36, 37, etc. ; its effects : moral blind- 
ness, 38, etc. ; want of harmony, 38, 
39 ; alienation from men, 38, 39 ; 
destruction of moral fellowship, 40 ; 
different significations attached to 
the word, 45, etc. ; the possibility of, 
in Jesus, when rightly understood, 48. 

Sinfulness, and the possibility of sin- 
ning distinguished, 196. 

Sinlessness, both negative and positive, 
1, 41 ; influence of the thought, 2, 3 ; 
importance of, in relation to apolo- 
getics, 3-11 ; a moral perfection, 42 ; 
perfect obedience, 43 ; perfect union 
with God, 44; distinguished from 
impeccability, 46 ; different views of it, 
46, 147, etc. ; believable of Jesus, 51. 

Sinlessness of Jesus, Biblical proof, 
54-58 (see Gospel-Portraiture) ; ob- 
jections to the Biblical proof exa- 
mined, 83-89 ; testimony of Jesus to 
His own sinlessness, 95-107 ; effects 
of the belief of, 113, etc. ; these 
effects not produced by an idea, but 
by a fact, 128, etc. ; not invented by 
the apostles, 137. 

Sinless perfection, a tradition of an 
actual life of, 5; the impression 
caused by such an appearance, 5, 6 ; 
realized in Jesus of Nazareth, 6; 
the origin of the doubts respecting, 
7, etc. 

Sinners, all men are, 236. 
Sins, wilful and unwilful, 86, etc. 
Socrates and Jesus, 68, 83, 84, 132, 133. 
Sophocles, the pictures of virtue which 

he presents, 130. 
Spiritualism, 128. 
Stapfer quoted, 230. 
State religion, 269. 

Steudel, quoted, on the possibility of sin 
in Jesus, 49 ; respecting John and 
Jesus Christ, 89. 

Strauss, his mythical view of the Temp- 
tation of Jesus, 307. 



OF SUBJECTS AND AUTHORS. 



323 



Substitute for sinners, Jesus the, 263. 

Suffering and doing, the relation be- 
tween, in Jesus, 72. 

Sufferings of Christ, the, in Gethse- 
mane, 177, 179 ; on the cross, 179- 
181. 

Swine, the destruction of the herd of, 
its bearing on the character of Jesus, 
184, etc. 

Teacher, Jesus viewed as a, 240, etc. 
Temple, the expulsion of the buyers 

and sellers from, by Jesus, 185, etc. 
Temptation, its relation to evil, 162- 

165. 

Temptation of Jesus, its reality, 159 ; 
ground of its possibility, 161; the 
narrative of, considered in relation 
to the sinlessness of Jesus, 165 ; his- 
torical"character of the narrative of, 
166, 167; threefold, 168, 169; its 
reference to His Messianic character, 
167-169 ; its reference to Him as 
man, 169-172 ; may be viewed as an 
outward or inward transaction, 173 ; 
His moral purity unsullied thereby, 
174; exercised no determining in- 
fluence over His inward life, 175, 
176; examination of details of the 
narrative of, 293-302 ; explanations 
which represent the narrative as a 
mere product of thought, 303-310; 
explanations which recognize in it 
an historical basis, 310, 316. 

Tempter, the, 313. 

Testimony of Jesus to His own sinless- 
ness, 93-107. 
Theonomy,as opposed to autonomy, 34. 
Tholuck quoted, 101. 



Union with Christ, 265. 

Unity of the human mind, the, 224. 

Unity of the principle of activity in 

Jesus, 233. 
Unity, the, of mankind, secured in 

Christ, 267-274. 
Usteri's view of the narrative of the 

agony of Jesus in Gethsemane, 178 ; 

mythical view of the Temptation of 

Jesus, 306, etc. 

Vision, the Temptation of Christ, not 
a, 311. 

Wandsbekker Messenger, the, quoted, 
on the value of the idea of the cha- 
racter of Christ, 78. 

Weber, quoted, respecting the sinless- 
ness of Jesus, 85. 

Weisse, quoted, on the moral sinless- 
ness of Jesus, 227. 

Will of God, the, concerning us, a will 
of holy love, 34, etc.; the sinless 
Jesus, the personal revelation of the, 
246, etc. 

Wimmer, quoted, respecting the one 

good, 205. 
Wolf's Curse Philologise, quoted, 205. 
Works of Jesus, the, 61. 

Xenophon's testimony to Socrates, 
compared with the apostles' testi- 
mony to Jesus, 83, 84; quoted, 
132, 

Young man, the rich, 205, 206. 
Zeal of Jesus, the, 185, 186. 



THE END, 



0$ * 



MURRAY AND GIBB, PRINTERS, EDINBURGH, 



FEB 1 2 1851 



Ha / 



<>4 o, 




_ rt- ^ ^ <u 

Cj>. - On * H<<> y V ^ ^ * 








9^ A 



0° O^*, ^ 





* o . x ^ 



_ -» >si c -i <lI 

r>- * ^ 









, ^f/^S.W * & °, % / j%$Sfi i * PC^ Cranberry Township, PA 16061 

^^^^^ ^t> A J(L> rv 1 (724) 779-2111 



, ^ Deacidified using the Bookkeeper process. 
.(V Neut ralrzing agent: Magnesium Oxide 
Treatment Date: July 2005 

^ PreservationTechnologies 

A WORLD LEADER IN PAPER PRESERVATION 

1 1 1 Thomson Park Drive 
Cranberry Township. PA 16066 
(724) 779-2111 



LIBRARY OF CONGRESS 




0 014 477 813 3 



